I pay for it. One of the services I pay is about $25/mo and they release about one update a year or so. It’s not cutting edge, just specialized. And they are making a profit doing a bit of tech investment and running the service, apparently. But also they are just tuning and packaging a publicly available model, not creating their own.

What can’t be sustained is this sprint to AGI or to always stay at the head of the pack. It’s too much investment for tiny gains that ultimately don’t move the needle a lot. I guess if the companies all destroy one another until only one remains, or someone really does attain AGI, they will realize gains. I’m not sure I see that working out, though.

What does that chatbot add?

I don’t need to do that. And what’s more, it wouldn’t be any kind of proof because I can bias the results just by how I phrase the query. I’ve been using AI for 6 years and use it on a near-daily basis. I’m very familiar with what it can do and what it can’t.

Between bias and randomness, you will have images that are evaluated as both fake and real at different times to different people. What use is that?

deleted by creator

“AI Chatbot”. Which is what to 99% of people, almost certainly including the journalist who doesn’t live under a rock? They are just avoiding naming it.

what is the message to the audience? That ChatGPT can investigate just as well as BBC.

What about this part?

Either it’s irresponsible to use ChatGPT to analyze the photo or it’s irresponsible to present to the reader that chatbots can do the job. Particularly when they’ve done the investigation the proper way.

Deliberate or not, they are encouraging Facebook conspiracy debates by people who lead AI to tell them a photo is fake and think that’s just as valid as BBC reporting.

Okay I get you’re playing devil’s advocate here, but set that aside for a moment. Is it more likely that BBC has a specialized chatbot that orchestrates expert APIs including for analyzing photos, or that the reporter asked ChatGPT? Even in the unlikely event I’m wrong, what is the message to the audience? That ChatGPT can investigate just as well as BBC. Which may well be the case, but it oughtn’t be.

My second point still stands. If you sent someone to look at the thing and it’s fine, I can tell you the photo is fake or manipulated without even looking at the damn thing.

A “chatbot” is not a specialized AI.

(I feel like maybe I need to put this boilerplate in every comment about AI, but I’d hate that.) I’m not against AI or even chatbots. They have their uses. This is not using them appropriately.

A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.

What the actual fuck? You couldn’t spare someone to just go look at the fucking thing rather than asking ChatGPT to spin you a tale? What are we even doing here, BBC?

A photo taken by a BBC North West Tonight reporter showed the bridge is undamaged

So they did. Why are we talking about ChatGPT then? You could just leave that part out. It’s useless. Obviously a fake photo has been manipulated. Why bother asking?

I mean, it is encrypted between their end and your… uh… end. Just not encrypted at their end.

I wonder who has to review the logs. That would be a shit job.

It’s openings, not employment. Which is why I asked whether the charts pasted here are showing employment or openings. And why I complained that the chart cuts off everything pre-Covid. If employment is going down, that’s a problem. If job openings are going down, it isn’t AI but a regression to mean. This video is the same jobs trend looked at through a different lens. It’s pretty clear and logical that the demand for more seasoned professionals is more static that for juniors.

This is numbers taken from public data and put into context, and I don’t think the fact that it’s posted on TikTok is relevant to the math. TikTok just has a better algorithm for discovery for me and that’s where I saw this guy’s work and started following him, and the length of short form video helps the content not exceed attention span.

That all being said, if employment of juniors is trending down and not just reverting to mean, then I agree with the consolation this is a doomsday scenario cooking over the next 40 years. I have been saying for a couple of years that’s a concern to watch out for. But so far I haven’t seen numbers that concern me. I’ll be continuing to watch this space closely because it’s directly related to my interests.

This video is talking about a slightly different chart, but it’s the same timeline for job openings disappearing. It’s very accessible. And it has a very different conclusion.

Greetings, Starfighter. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada

If only because I would love to be recruited into space for beating a video game.

By far my favorite movie about a video game that doesn’t exist.

I’d like to extend that graph a couple of years to the left. The analyses I’ve seen clearly demonstrate that this is a regression to mean after a post-Covid hiring spike. By looking at such a narrow window over such a fraught time, it looks like it could be saying anything here.

Are these workers? This is showing a real problem. Job openings? Not nearly as concerning. Without showing this in historical context, this is really dubious journalism.

To be honest I had no idea what your response even meant so I could not take offense. :) I was mostly just supporting that not enjoying an altered state of mind is perfectly valid, but maybe that’s not how my response came across.

Anyway, have a good day!

I don’t like being recreationally high. I have tried several times. I’ll take cannabis to help me sleep when I have insomnia, so it’s not just being anti-drug, I just don’t like it. My son in law thinks weed is the greatest thing in the world. Sometimes I do it with him just to be social.

The last time I partook, I sat in a chair for the entirety of a documentary about that sub implosion trying to decide if I needed to go throw up and whether I could make it without bouncing off walls and possibly the floor. By the end, I barely managed to take my ass to the guest room and fall asleep.

On the other hand, alcohol helps me cope with social anxiety.

There’s enough biological diversity that fairness is basically an illusion anyway. I don’t care enough about sports to have a strong opinion. I think it’s fine to say giving up competitive sports is a cost of gender transition. I might think it’s also fine to let trans athletes compete except I would hate it if the women’s league became the trans league or if poor young kids felt pressure to transition in order to compete at a higher level and get life-changing scholarships or even a professional career.

Is that a legitimate fear? Maybe not. At the end of the day, I rarely watch sports. I would support letting them compete and seeing if it is a problem before passing laws to fix issues that don’t actually exist.

I agree up to the point where the amendment is pointed at as disallowing reasonable regulation. If that’s the case, end 2A. But my goal is regulation, not abolishment. If 2A folks (mainly the Supreme Court here) can accept regulation existing in parallel with 2A, then I’m happy.

I’m mainly thinking about preventing school shootings and domestic violence and murder, so restrictions of some sort on mental health / violent history.

As far as I know, the jury is still out on whether that is infringing (not stealing). Based on my understanding, AI is transformative and would fall under fair use. That being said, claiming fair use and then selling the output is problematic to me.

Every single model should be open weights and uncensored. I wouldn’t have any issue with companies adding value or supplying the compute to run the model.

I don’t hate AI. It’s fine. I don’t love it either, but it’s neat and often useful.