kornork

Lots of comments about the general use of AI here, but in particular I think the AI renderings are counterproductive and especially misleading in this application.

The original drawings have ambiguities in them; they are well done but perspective and scale are off, and there are lots of questions about particular details of the drawings. The AI drawings simply take these particular questionable details and render them as "real."

There should be real life artifacts for many of these tools. LLMs can just as easily go search the web for images of those as create completely unreliable, fictional renderings of the same.

This is cool! I liked the time machine the best, and was surprised to see names I didn't recognize at the top (although I did recognize a couple faces once I looked them up).

We need a corporate death penalty for these kinds of breaches.

When I enter Zen Mode, my notifications are brought along for the ride, which is not what I had hoped for. I get a ton of persistent notifications and I just tend to let them stay until I have time to look (obviously creating a very anti-zen cluttered screen). Known issue?

What's stopping someone from literally cloning the minimal feature-set we loved, and so many people here seem to be pining for?

I scrolled down a fair bit and didn't see anyone posting an alternative.

I've heard this quote before, and I don't get it. This article fails to show me just how complicated that is. When I think "complicated," I think of a multiplicity of interconnected chemical molecular processes like what must happen in the cell, or layers of recursively connected neurons in the brain. Not some mindless cloud of gluons. What they've described seems less "complicated" and more "confusing." "We don't understand this (yet?)" is a lot different than "it's possible to understand this, if your brain is really big."

I'm sure your idea's great, but I was hoping for a regionally local-first podcast app when I clicked the link, e.g. something that would show me podcasts from near where I live.

When I went (15 yrs ago?), there was also the problem of armed locals. I can't remember if they were some guerrilla group or just opportunistic bandits, but we had to caravan to get there with a military escort. So that can't help with the tourism, if it's still going on.

I love the em dash; I use 'em all the time. But finding them all over this post indicates, maybe, possible, (probably?), that the author at least used AI generated text as a first draft.

In the worst case, this is like "We released this sycophantic model because we're brain dead. To drive home the point, we had ChatGPT write this article too (because we're brain dead)."

I tend to rely on AI to write stuff for me that I don't care too much about. Writing something important requires me to struggle with the words to make sure I'm really saying what I want to say. So in the best case, if they relied on ChatGPT so much that it left a fingerprint, to me they're saying this incident really wasn't important.

Honest question: who else, internal to the executive branch, and besides the president, should be able to interpret the laws for the executive branch?

By my reading, this is a clarification that if an agency makes a significant policy change or regulation, they ought to run it by the president first.

It doesn't preclude other branches of government from checking this power.

I think the assertion that "eating less usually means eating less meat" is probably false (though I couldn't read the article cuz paywall).

The first article talks plenty about why: people are eating less of the the things that are addictive to them, such as alcohol and cookies, which are a major source of calories.

It's not mentioned in the abstract but there's a brain activity measuring device involved as well.

So this is neurofeedback. But is it any better than existing neurofeedback which already makes use of computer games?

I don't see how this is linked to AI.

The article doesn't mention AI at all. We know that the number of books being released has exploded in general due to AI, but are those books also being released in audiobook form? Or is this increase due somehow to the use of AI in audiobook recording?

The article does hint at this - with some of the top authors recording hundreds of books - so maybe these folks have used AI to clone their voices and fast track the process?

Personally, I think AI has great potential here, even if only to fill in the gaps. Older, less loved books aren't recorded.

Additionally, there are several narrators that simply grate on my ears, or who my brain has simply learned to tune out, and it would be nice to have an option to switch to a (lower quality) AI version.

It's curious, to me at least, why they didn't just go back and fix those themselves later. The early ones were on CD (or tape?), so maybe that's why.