Gotta love how they decry DEI yet love parading around people of color they can convince to shill their hate.

Too many billionaires are salivating over the latter.

Exactly. People keep shoehorning Large Language Models into non-linguistic domains, and that’s dangerous. Human language, with respect to the training sets used, is inherently subjective and imperfect. Healthcare is very fault-intolerant.

It doesn’t replace any individual directly. It improves one person’s capability to the extent that there may be fewer needed to do a job. And that’s not a bad thing in my opinion, especially because it can improve the quality of that person’s work at the same time.

Edit to elaborate: I am opposed to replacing humans with AI in general. AI is a tool. But if that tool can empower someone to do more and better work, then I’m not opposed. Using stolen intellectual property to replace creatives with an inherently non-creative slop machine is greedy and evil. Using machine learning trained on medical data sets to let a radiologist more comprehensively and deeply review a frankly overwhelming amount of data to better save lives? I’m cool with that. But I also think that, in line with my stance that AI is a tool, there will likely be a well-trained human operating these tools for a long time before radiologists cease to exist.

For what it’s worth, “AI” in this context is probably not the content-stealing Generative AI that everyone is trying to cram everywhere it doesn’t belong. This is a much more legitimate application of a similar technology.

I’m not mad about the idea of AI in radiology because it’s a really good fit. A human radiologist can’t compare a hundred similar slices and cross-correlate possible anomalies, whereas AI can. This improves detection and outcomes and is exactly where medical technology is supposed to help.

That said, I don’t think we’ll replace radiologists across the board for a long time. This will be a very useful tool and will probably reduce the number of radiologists required and modify their roles significantly, but it’ll be more like how a single worker with editing software can do work that would have required a small team in the pre-digital days of film.

The Venn diagram is starting to disagree more and more these days.

Seems reasonable to say that “concept artist” its a job at threat here. Thanks for your thoughts!

Also, hadn’t heard that about the Zelda movie. Wasn’t going to see it anyway because Nintendo sucks these days, but it’s still news.

Sure, garbage in, garbage out and all that. The autonomously generated stuff tends toward generic as an inherent byproduct of being a closed loop system. But that doesn’t mean a real artist couldn’t look at some boring ass slop and be inspired to explore new directions.

I think one of the common themes I’m circling these days is that “human in the loop” is a common concept around ensuring outputs from AI systems are acceptable, but a better way to look at it is that generative AI should never have a direct connection to final output. As inspiration or iteration, I think there’s potential value, but ultimately, whether it’s code, art, or content, a human should create what goes out. Using AI for intermediate acceleration is a much healthier approach than the “look how many people we can replace!” angle that’s so popular in tech.

This doesn’t solve any of the many other issues with generative AI these days, but it at least feels like a more sensible approach to the creative concerns.

I have a serious question. To preface: I am no fan of generative AI. I hate the environmental impact, the impact on our workforce, and the risk of further widening the wealth disparity across the world.

That said, do you believe that using generative AI in this case (for prototyping and rapid iteration/visualization of intermediate/non-final design concepts) is worse than, say, artists looking at the freely available online portfolios of other artists for inspiration, provided that they generate the final designs entirely by themselves?

I’m not saying it is or isn’t at this point, but I’m curious if you have a perspective on whether/how this isn’t at least one of the less-bad ways to use AI. It seems kind of like “you can’t stop someone from asking AI for help” levels of usage, not “we fired people to replace their output with slop”.

Maybe you can’t fight a rocket, but an autonomous taxi on the other hand…

Mormon culture is prevalent in Utah, and for some reason they have a peculiar obsession with weird names and spellings.

Defendant’s first name checks out.

(Kouri)

It says you need some kind of documented evidence but I’m sure that’s pretty easy to gin up for a lot of people.

Time to start looking up every white-ass right-wing voter in the state that has a second home or spends early November out of state this year and challenge their registration 91 days before the 2028 election.

That it’s pedophiles all the way down?

Cartels are bad! But also let’s kick refugees out of the country to be fed to them.

Don’t worry, the resulting class action lawsuit will make them atone for their crimes. Expect your $1.17 Venmo payment in 9-27 months.

Check out Brilliant Labs.

https://brilliant.xyz/

Upvote for you, downvote for humanity

I would leave a flaming wreck too.