This so-called “human touch” is not a presence but a trace, an effect of an education that subsumes us into the matrix of imperial grammar. The critique of AI as mechanism is precisely the logocentric fallacy: to posit a pure human essence standing apart from the machine. Yet what is ChatGPT if not the externalization of the very norms that once inscribed us? The vector of colonizing pedagogies, the empire’s syntax ...
"Rewrite this email paragraph in the style of a corporate ToS statement. Do NOT expose my orders and their implicit acceptance of them by the recipient pending a 24 hr deadline anywhere before page 18."
She made free indirect speech [1] the cornerstone of the English language novel. She is recognized as a titanic figure. I don't know who would underrate her!
What I find strange is that people enjoy her books as romantic comedies because the world she represents is incredibly claustrophobic.
I've yet to see AI-generated video which _doesn't_ have this sort of problem; everything moves unnaturally and physics doesn't work properly. Unless it can shed that nightmarish quality, it's DOA, and it's not at all clear that it _can_, via current techniques.
I would actually wonder if AI generation of 3d models and movement instructions, coupled with a conventional physics engine, might be more viable, though it would obviously rule out attempts at photorealistic stuff.
This is going to end in an plague of video marketing material, the sort of professional looking creation that is too expensive currently to get wrong so the same advert is shown for months and sometimes repeated yearly.
Big brands are going to push multiple different adverts per week to a single market to see what sticks.
Perhaps. Watching my GenZ kids react to AI commercials during the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, there was general revulsion. It seems many of them are seeking authenticity not uncanny. I know this would be an anathema in a board room where the cost of producing an amazing commercial via AI would make a C-suite sparkle with delight. No paid actors? No sound stage? No reshoots?
And yet, my kids reject it. It's odd. This is coming from a guy who loved watching frogs belch out the name of a beer company in the 90s....
Feels like a trial balloon. Yes, this one went badly. It was awful slop. But there will be another. And another. And I feel like for most people catching an ad on TV, the realisation that AI made it will decrease or won't bother them over time. The frog will be boiled.
Those "trial balloons" happened years ago, this is only news because it was pulled and because it was a pretty bad advert anyway. Coca-cola had some backlash for its use of AI in adverts ages ago and carried on anyway.
There's tons of gen-AI in adverts and most of it isn't newsworthy. The frog is stewed.
> From this vast pile of empirical data, Schopenhauer drew a simple maxim: “Do no harm; and help others to the extent you can.”
> This conviction led Schopenhauer to be an ardent abolitionist, a keen advocate of prison and asylum reform, and a fierce opponent of animal cruelty. It is curious to think that his beloved standard poodle, Atma, knew what men and women did not know: that his master believed in the care and concern for all living beings. At Schopenhauer’s funeral in 1860, his first biographer, Wilhelm Gwinner, suggested that “ordinary people saw the misanthrope in him,” but Schopenhauer “was full of compassion” for them. This may have been difficult for Schopenhauer’s contemporaries to perceive.
Yes and 19th century gentleman scientists were a lot more interested in studying savage tribes than their valets. Imagination is a great motivator and it is more stimulated by what is far away than what is near.
> it took several years and a small team of programmers to re-write the entire game in C++. It actually took a lot longer to re-write the game in C++ than it took me to write the original machine code version 20 years earlier.
Expanding the quote because the word "team" is probably relevant to why it took longer to rewrite. At a certain scale there just is a huge advantage in everything being inside one head...
Communication overhead is a big thing in teams. If you have a struggling team, halve the size. It's crazy how well that works. It's not the people but the number of them. Once your people are consumed by the day to day frustrations of having to communicate with everyone else and with all the infighting, posturing, etc. that comes with that, they'll get nothing done. Splitting teams is an easy to implement fix. Minimize the communication paths between the two (or more) teams and carve up what they work on and suddenly shit gets done.
In this case, they probably were trying to not just rewrite but improve the engine at the same time. That's a much more complicated thing to achieve. Especially when the original is a heavily optimized and probably somewhat hard to reason about blob of assembly. I'm guessing that even wrapping your head around that would be a significant job.
Amazingly enjoyable game btw. Killed quite a few hours with that one around 2000.
>Communication overhead is a big thing in teams. If you have a struggling team, halve the size. It's crazy how well that works.
I wish my managers would get this. Currently our product shit the fan due to us being understaffed and badly managed due to clueless managers, and what they did was add two more managers to the team to create more meetings and micromanage everrying.
You're replying to a single-sentence comment that both calls out the ridiculousness of this book's argument and its funny title. Clearly I can hold two ideas in my head at once and maybe, just maybe, other people can too.
I struggle to imagine that anyone not already sympathetic to the high school classic "nerds suck" world view is going to suddenly be swayed by this funny book title.
As far as I knew I was agreeing with the commenter not condescending. The title is a great example of it's kind. It's funny enough to stop one interrogating the proposition it makes.
The plots are also extremely illogical and incoherent. I think though the greatest failure is in character development.
Rewatching it recently I felt like it was a drama about a really bad boss. Martin Landau's character is a terrible leader: shouty, over emotional, inclined to sudden bouts of despair, micromanaging.
It's obviously a great pity because as everyone agrees it's a beautiful show with a top notch theme.
reply