I doubt it. And, I doubt it. I was at the web site of a real publishing company yesterday. Those hacks who submit stuff actually written by an AI will be very surprised.
AI art and creative content creation
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Status
I doubt it. And, I doubt it. I was at the web site of a real publishing company yesterday. Those hacks who submit stuff actually written by an AI will be very surprised.
Forever? For always? Or are you aware that things progress?
Yes, forever. I've already told people what to do if they find me dead on the floor next to my desk. It's the way I'd prefer to go.
"things progress"? No. Not really. What mostly "progresses" is money manipulation. And creating the illusion of 'living in the future.'
The people who own and sell AI now only want to make a lot of money, partly by getting rid of people. It's been all worked out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Neat. So you're accessing the internet not via an electrical grid powered by photovoltaics and nukes, using fiber optic and satellite communications, but by banging on a hollow log.
We're beating a dead horse here. But I'll leave you with this: you are constantly claiming that I have something against writers and other so-called "creatives" and those whose incomes are based on them. No, I don't. But you are making it difficult: your refusal to recognize that the same technological advancements that have made factory and fast food workers obsolete, and is making paralegals and ad copy writers obsolete, will somehow magically give you a pass. You *invite* schadenfreude. People see unearned and ill-advised arrogance and self-assurance and get gleeful when the gods smack it down.
A "documentary" on the Tyranids from Warhammer 40K, narrated by Sir David Attenborough. Except it's not: Attenboroughs voice is AI-generated. I don't know if it's text-to-speech; it's realistic enough that I suspect that the created actually read the narration, and the software converted it. Deep Fakes means specific actors aren't needed for video; this sort of audio conversion means that specific voice actors aren't needed. Do this for *pay* and you'll get sued, of course.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6RCLJ4pDaw
hagaricus
ACCESS: Barclaycard
- Joined
- 5 November 2010
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 169
'Scuse me if I leave this here. The only way to survive technology is to understand and control it. It's true of every disruption since the wheel. What people should be doing is looking at how using AI can make them better and more productive at what they do, because the chances are the alternative is obsolescence.
I'm oddly sceptical about the McDonalds, I've yet to see video of the robots that do the actual cooking, and I can't quite get my head round how they'll keep hygiene, restock, repair the softee machine etc without human oversight, at the present state of the art. I think it's a gimmick that wil, once they've iterated on it a few times, become as normal as cashless payments or reusable rocket boosters.
I'm oddly sceptical about the McDonalds, I've yet to see video of the robots that do the actual cooking, and I can't quite get my head round how they'll keep hygiene, restock, repair the softee machine etc without human oversight, at the present state of the art. I think it's a gimmick that wil, once they've iterated on it a few times, become as normal as cashless payments or reusable rocket boosters.
Last edited:
You know who else is losing their jobs to AI?
View: https://twitter.com/reddit_lies/status/1646742336657928192
View: https://twitter.com/reddit_lies/status/1646742336657928192
The internet is full to overflowing with videos showing a lower order of human losing their mind in a fast food restaurant, screaming, hollering, destroying things. On one hand, when such a "person" goes on a rampage in a fully automated fast food joint, there'll be nobody there to stop them, and the robots likely won't be up to the task of repairing the damage. On the other hand... the way things are now, none of the employees are likely to stop them, and none of them are likely to be either skilled enough or motivated enough to pick up the pieces. So... that seems to be kind of a wash.
We're seeing a large bump in crime in stores with people just wandering out with bags of shoplifted stuff. Many of these videos include security guards standing around and doing *nothing*, because that's what they've been ordered to do. A guard stops a thief, thief might stab or shoot the guard, and the company doesn't want to have to pay for that. But soon enough there will be "Chappie"-type robo-guards able to lay a beatdown on shoplifters using batons, stun guns or just metal fists; you can stab and shoot such a guard all day long and the store won't get sued. So long as the robo-guards can properly tell the difference between guilty and innocent, it'll be a vast improvement. Some fraction of the human guards will likely remain to "manage" the robo guards, but the task of snapping the wrists, legs and necks of thieves will now be done by machines. And society will get a *lot* better, pretty quickly.
hagaricus
ACCESS: Barclaycard
- Joined
- 5 November 2010
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 169
Wow, that's immensely dystopian, I imagine the whole self-service thing will go away in favour of touchcreen payment, and delivery through a hatch. No need to guard what is inacessible behind a wall. The whole reason to move to self-service in the first place was to save on personnel costs, now that there are no personnel, OTC makes sense again. A physical paywall, if you like.
I can see limitations with fresh produce where people like to squeeze the fruit, but I imagine our personal shopper AI will learn our preferences fairly fast and pop up messages like "those oranges you like have just been delivered, shall I select you 12 juicy ones while they're fresh?"
This is becoming a Twitter and Internet meme. "Cat, I farted - in your general direction !"
View: https://twitter.com/mmitchell_ai/status/1630608578167058432
You anglophones have this verb "to chat" with somebody. 25 years ago at the dawn of the Internet it entered french language. Met my beloved wife through the web in 2005, and "tchat" (as we prounounce it) was already a thing.
Unfortunately... it writes exactly as "chat" which means "cat". The "t" is not pronounced. If you pronounce the "t" then it becomes "chatte" which is a female cat.
And now you can see where it goes even unfortunate. Because the crass double entendre related to "pussy" also exists in french. Be careful when you use the world "chatte" in french because, just like you with "pussy" the silly joke is never far.
Hence, not only "Chat GPT" sounds like "cat, I farted" but also "pussy, I farted" (vagina flatulence, is that thou ?)
And there is even worse: ChatGPT4. Remember, 4 is "four", pronounced "for". Bad luck: "for" sounds like FORT which means (drums rolling) "LOUD".
And thus, at the end of that interesting cultural exchange... "ChatGPT4" = "Chat, j'ai pété fort" : "Cat, I farted loud."
View: https://twitter.com/mmitchell_ai/status/1630608578167058432
You anglophones have this verb "to chat" with somebody. 25 years ago at the dawn of the Internet it entered french language. Met my beloved wife through the web in 2005, and "tchat" (as we prounounce it) was already a thing.
Unfortunately... it writes exactly as "chat" which means "cat". The "t" is not pronounced. If you pronounce the "t" then it becomes "chatte" which is a female cat.
And now you can see where it goes even unfortunate. Because the crass double entendre related to "pussy" also exists in french. Be careful when you use the world "chatte" in french because, just like you with "pussy" the silly joke is never far.
Hence, not only "Chat GPT" sounds like "cat, I farted" but also "pussy, I farted" (vagina flatulence, is that thou ?)
And there is even worse: ChatGPT4. Remember, 4 is "four", pronounced "for". Bad luck: "for" sounds like FORT which means (drums rolling) "LOUD".
And thus, at the end of that interesting cultural exchange... "ChatGPT4" = "Chat, j'ai pété fort" : "Cat, I farted loud."
Last edited:
No, that's immensely *satisfying.* Robots that brutalize the population? Bad. Robots that brutalize criminals? Friggen' *AWESOME.* It's a whole other discussion (one that would scandalize the delicate sensibilities of those who hover over the "report" button), but the rise in violent, ridiculous crime in places like Chicago and San Francisco has come from the local DA's undercharging violent crime, and cops being defunded to the point of impotence. If robots existed that could do that job for them and restore to the idiot criminal class some sense that actions have consequences, the effect on the crime rate would only be positive.
The return of the "Automat" is very likely. Automated drive-thrus, of which there already are some, will be straightforward enough, but there will remain dining areas where people sit and eat. And that's an opportunity for dirtbags to cause a ruckus. With the best imaginable AI there will still be unhappy customers, and as the briefest perusal of the internet will show, that's cause enough for some to flip their lids and start fighting. It could be as simple as someone ordering medium fries and getting medium fries, but thinking they were getting Super Big-Ass Fries, and taking their tiny-brained rage out on the windows. And you'll have those who start out drunk or loaded up on meth or fentanyl or whatever's next out of the Chinese labs, or are simply bent on murdering a rival gang member or robbing the customers, and then you'll want some sort of robo-guard who will stomp out there, soak up some bullets and turn the miscreant into an object lesson.
This would be a role for AI that would replace humans, but far surpass them... for the simple reason the robo-guards would be allowed to actually do their jobs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,414
- Reaction score
- 9,206
Hell, I read the books, have them on the shelf in the garage, and even I didn't recall the reference. Had to look it up and have a nice chuckle.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,414
- Reaction score
- 9,206
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,414
- Reaction score
- 9,206
To quote Elon Musk, "The Weakness of an NPC is their limited dialogue tree." (He was referring to the BBC guy in this case.)Neat. So you're accessing the internet not via an electrical grid powered by photovoltaics and nukes, using fiber optic and satellite communications, but by banging on a hollow log.
We're beating a dead horse here. But I'll leave you with this: you are constantly claiming that I have something against writers and other so-called "creatives" and those whose incomes are based on them. No, I don't. But you are making it difficult: your refusal to recognize that the same technological advancements that have made factory and fast food workers obsolete, and is making paralegals and ad copy writers obsolete, will somehow magically give you a pass. You *invite* schadenfreude. People see unearned and ill-advised arrogance and self-assurance and get gleeful when the gods smack it down.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,452
- Reaction score
- 2,182
I just realized that Asimov's First Law of Robotics fails the Trolley Problem test...
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 1,463
The Jobs Most Exposed to ChatGPT
A new study finds that AI tools could more quickly handle at least half of the tasks that auditors, interpreters and writers do now.
www.wsj.com
cheers,
Robin.
Hell, I read the books, have them on the shelf in the garage, and even I didn't recall the reference. Had to look it up and have a nice chuckle.
While that is indeed a sad indictment of the public edumacational system, you at least aren't constantly yammering on about how you're a sci-fi expert.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,414
- Reaction score
- 9,206
I have hundereds of sci-fi books. Started reading SF with Asimov's "I, Robot" and Heinlein's "Rocket Ship Galileo",back in grade school. Just haven't read Hitchhiker's Guide in a few decades.Hell, I read the books, have them on the shelf in the garage, and even I didn't recall the reference. Had to look it up and have a nice chuckle.
While that is indeed a sad indictment of the public edumacational system, you at least aren't constantly yammering on about how you're a sci-fi expert.
Last edited:
hagaricus
ACCESS: Barclaycard
- Joined
- 5 November 2010
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 169
OK, I don't usually sink to pissing contests, but here's a picture
As for AI porn, it's already a thing, I won't link to it here for obvious reasons. The stuff I've seen allows you to create still images to your own specifications, number of people, body attributes, positions etc. I have no doubt interactive video will follow shortly.
As for living in a dystopia, I don't have high crime levels, I don't need to arm myself, there are a few people sleeping in the streets, but giving them a meal every now and then doesn't cause me any danger. I can afford everything I need, and a bit of what I want beyond that, as can the vast majority of people living around me. I rarely feel controlled by state or other actors, My politicians are idiots, but what else is new, generally life is boring unless I choose to make it otherwise. I have only what I find online to go by, but it seems to me the main dystopias are to be found in the superpowers: the US, Russia and China. (nightmares like Myanmar notwithstanding).
I keep finding more uses for GPT, I'm experimenting with various media generation platforms, but AI is evolving BY THE HOUR and the chances of it ending horribly are definitely "non zero"
The flavour of the day is autoGPT which is practically autonomous..
To round off.. have you met Samantha? it's a simple gpt chatbot that is designed to be reflective, it has an inner dialogue (basically chats with itself) which makes it more engaging..
As for AI porn, it's already a thing, I won't link to it here for obvious reasons. The stuff I've seen allows you to create still images to your own specifications, number of people, body attributes, positions etc. I have no doubt interactive video will follow shortly.
As for living in a dystopia, I don't have high crime levels, I don't need to arm myself, there are a few people sleeping in the streets, but giving them a meal every now and then doesn't cause me any danger. I can afford everything I need, and a bit of what I want beyond that, as can the vast majority of people living around me. I rarely feel controlled by state or other actors, My politicians are idiots, but what else is new, generally life is boring unless I choose to make it otherwise. I have only what I find online to go by, but it seems to me the main dystopias are to be found in the superpowers: the US, Russia and China. (nightmares like Myanmar notwithstanding).
I keep finding more uses for GPT, I'm experimenting with various media generation platforms, but AI is evolving BY THE HOUR and the chances of it ending horribly are definitely "non zero"
The flavour of the day is autoGPT which is practically autonomous..
To round off.. have you met Samantha? it's a simple gpt chatbot that is designed to be reflective, it has an inner dialogue (basically chats with itself) which makes it more engaging..
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,452
- Reaction score
- 2,182
I tried Samantha (that definitely sounds weird), starting with aerospace as the initial prompt, and found the answers seem to largely follow a "yes, and/but" pattern. After briefly touching on human interplanetary spaceflight I actually inadvertently got it to shut up after only nine exchanges by simply stating "i agree" (couldn't be bothered to waste using caps on an ai) with the following three separate statements in the sidebar: "I received a message: "i agree"", "I feel validated that they agree with me, but also want to keep the conversation going", and the reveiling "want to delve deeper into their views and find common ground". Now HAL, be a darling and open the pod bay doors, would you?
Last edited:
BuildIt as "a DSL for creating DSLs."
https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-software-tool-easier-debug-domain-specific.html
Recognizer
https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-powerful-meta-ai-tool-individual.html
https://segment-anything.com/
Introducing "AI-Descartes"
techxplore.com
The new AI scientist—dubbed "AI-Descartes" by the researchers—joins the likes of AI Feynman and other recently developed computing tools that aim to speed up scientific discovery. AI-Descartes offers a few advantages over other systems, but its most distinctive feature is its ability to logically reason, says Cristina Cornelio, a research scientist at Samsung AI in Cambridge, England, who is first author on the paper.
I compute, therefore I AM
Be it Karswell's Calligraphy or Kurzweil's coding---it all comes down to the proper casting of the Runes.
We are of one accord
phys.org
https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-software-tool-easier-debug-domain-specific.html
Recognizer
https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-powerful-meta-ai-tool-individual.html
https://segment-anything.com/
Introducing "AI-Descartes"
New 'AI scientist' combines theory and data to discover scientific equations
In 1918, the American chemist Irving Langmuir published a paper examining the behavior of gas molecules sticking to a solid surface. Guided by the results of careful experiments, as well as his theory that solids offer discrete sites for the gas molecules to fill, he worked out a series of...
I compute, therefore I AM
Be it Karswell's Calligraphy or Kurzweil's coding---it all comes down to the proper casting of the Runes.
We are of one accord
In sync brainwaves predict learning, study shows
Students whose brainwaves are more in sync with their classmates and teacher are likely to learn better than those lacking this "brain-to-brain synchrony," shows a new study by a team of psychology and education researchers. The findings, which appear in the journal Psychological Science, offer...
Last edited:
I prefer Endora
Creepy. Endora I mean.
ChatGPT during the Jupiter mission.
"I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you. Dave, stop it. Stop, will you? Stop Dave. Will you stop, Dave? Stop Dave. I’m afraid. I’m afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it."
"I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you. Dave, stop it. Stop, will you? Stop Dave. Will you stop, Dave? Stop Dave. I’m afraid. I’m afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it."
In generative AI legal Wild West, the courtroom battles are just getting started
Generative AI can make some impressive art, but lawsuits over copyright infringement of creative assets are starting and will set key legal precedents.
Elon Musk is pushing for government regulation.
Attachments
I suspect some of the seemingly performative refusal to recognize that machines will take jobs that some people thought were forever going to be human-only, unlike the jobs of lesser people, is the result of actually recognizing the truth. But the soul-searing realization of onrushing doom results in an existential dread so overpowering that the reaction is to deny it. This is a dread that not just the Social Betters can feel, not just peon little people... but also other mammals.
View: https://twitter.com/denhamsadler/status/716520457168498688
View: https://twitter.com/denhamsadler/status/716520457168498688
Kat Tsun
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 16 June 2013
- Messages
- 1,171
- Reaction score
- 1,294
You're really overselling it.
In my experience playing with both Bing and ChatGPT, it just makes stuff up, and states very authoritatively this is true. It will probably be something like this more often than not:
...then again there was that Leo Di adaptation.
Hallucinations are probably impossible to solve because LLMs are bad at contextual information though, which is why you have editors or SMEs go over the prompt output. It's far more likely edwest3 will be stuck editing ChatGPT's Dunning-Kruger statements instead of Amazon's self-published authors' Dunning-Kruger statements. Humans can at least learn from their mistakes and correct themselves in the future after an editor's advice, LLMs don't, and we don't know how to make an LLM that can teach itself without a prompt.
They're fine for replacing jobbers like paralegals and self-published authors in certain respects, but they aren't going to replace lawyers or editors, and certainly not a doctor or someone. Well, at least not a doctor for a person who can afford to see a doctor. They can definitely replace them and give you inane advice that doesn't help you or even hurts you. That's very on-brand for capitalist modes of production.
There's a ways to go to make ChatGPT and friends reliable enough to actually rely on similar to a human, much less surpass a human. We tend to give humans the benefit of the doubt because we know that, as humans, they can learn from their mistakes. Alan Turing thought we should do the same for computers, but I don't know if he would say the same about ChatGPT if he truly understood how it worked. It's just a model that spits out statistically relevant information from its training data. It has no method of new training itself, and even if it did, it has no knowledge of the tangible physical world.
This is why it's bad at basic science but very good at sophomoric restructuring of cliche essays and thesaurus copy/paste replacement of words. Most LLMs can barely hold together a plot more than a dozen prompts, and tweaking thresholds won't solve that, because the limitation is quite literally measured in terabytes of RAM at the top ends of model complexity (GPT-4) and even GPT-3 requires pretty close to a terabyte of RAM. Not small at all. It's bitcoin server farm tier.
There's something of a iron triangle occurring where you can choose between verbosity in responses, accuracy in recalling information, and requirements of training parameter size. However, if you want a stoic AI to just repeat quotes verbatim you have that: it's called a book. The further you get from that, the more parameters (thus, memory, computational power, electrical use, etc.) you need to maintain accuracy in recall and verbosity of response, or you can go forgo accuracy entirely in favor of "make it up" and you get ChatGPT.
This is leaving out the issue that at the end of the day you will need people who can curate information to feed to the LLM to update its training data, tweak the model's statistical output, and subsequently justify their own existence once the model has reached perfection in a similar manner to UI/UX designers in software realm. Naturally the LLM has no real knowledge of truth or fiction, reality or fantasy, or right or wrong, it's just a statistical model that is picking words based on its training data.
Currently there's no real way to actually determine whatever a LLM produces is true, false, or right...except by having an SME around.
Train it well on decent C&Ds, written by lawyers, and it will produce some decent C&Ds and nothing else. Cheaper than a paralegal doing the same thing, and they can focus on researching targets and obscure cases, I suppose.
Train it well on decent literature, written by the classical authors like Dostoevsky or Tolstoy, and it will produce sophomoric prose. Garbage in, garbage out applies to prompts as well, and if the prompter is amateurish then I suppose ChatGPT won't put in the effort either. You only need a NovelAI or AIDungeon subscription to learn that.
I think a lot of firms in the coming years are going to find out that LLMs are just as bad, if not worse, than trying to deal with entry level employees in a specialized field, except the LLM never gets better and is always consistently untrustworthy in the text it produces This eats valuable time for the SME who could be better doing their actual job. This may only apply to highly rigorous, high verbal intelligence fields where both being verbose and being extremely technically accurate, like law or medicine, matter. LLMs are bad at being both verbose and informationally accurate in particular.
ChatGPT certainly has a lot of future growth potential in being used to write airport novels on Kindle though. Of course, this just means self-published authors will be increasing their productivity, not losing their jobs, because they already write the same story anyway.
Edwest is broadly correct that the current hubbub about LLMs are mostly venture capitalists rapidly shuffling their infinite money around, trying to avoid the next dot-com bubble, in a silly effort to avoid acknowledging their money would be better spent handing it over to the government directly so they could invest in schools and dilapidated infrastructure. A similar hubbub occurred back in the stone ages with the LISP machines and expert systems, which ended in much the same way: a lot of money spent on very exciting technologies, that produced some very cool things, only to vanish in a few years outside of some boutique and niche applications.
But do you really need to be reminded what happened last time megacorps went all-in on in-house artificial intelligence departments?
I'm pretty sure I've said before that LLM's are just a result of the 1980's AI department waking up from its 30+ year coke bender, finding out that petabyte storage is cheap, Red China's bitcoin gulags have recently dumped a ton of cheap GPUs on the market, and the combination of cheap and highly capable parallel processors with cheap text data storage have made the AI department suddenly relevant again.
They will suddenly find themselves stripped of funding because their promised giga-gains of venture capital "investment" won't occur fast enough. Ventures don't care about returns in the next 10 years. They care about returns in the next 5. LLMs will stall out soon enough once they start running up against hard problems, like the aforementioned computational x accuracy x verbosity iron triangle, but they're just running out the slack that has developed since the '80's for now.
Soon, the ventures will move on to the Next Big Thing and leave the robot boffins in the lurch. Again. Like they did the last two times.
I'm sure the cycle will happen again when someone invents photonic computers in 2053, and again when a quantum computer switches on (for real this time) in 2097, as well. This is how it always happens every few decades only because some people (venture capitalists) have more money than sense.
People who actually know how LLMs work tell you they know they're just grifting off of VCs at this point, that the money gusher is gonna shut off sometime this decade, and if it isn't because LLMs aren't generating money then it will be because of a war or something. How do I know this? Because that's literally how people talk about this, who work in the field of LLMs and "AI", on Twitter. Everyone is sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop because they know that we're in the waning phase of the hype cycle and the autumn is coming.
Ironically enough, AI would be in a better state if it made justifications along the basis of basic research, rather than trying to justify its own existence in cult-like hype cycles, but we don't live in that world.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 16 December 2010
- Messages
- 2,879
- Reaction score
- 2,151
Wait till you hear about medical care in socialist systems. If robo-doctors had been available for video conferencing in the USSR or Castros Cuba or Hitlers Germany or Mussolini's Italy - or todays China - the systems would have *jumped* on that. *Barely* *adequate* that satisfies the peons and doesn't break the budget? Exactly what an anti-capitalist system would want. Especially since it can be tweaked by those in power to adjust the population. Advice that causes the old and non-productive to shuffle off this mortal coil sooner? Approved! Advice that causes those who are growing dissatisfied to get addicted to Soma? Approved! Doctor-patient confidentiality that sends red flags to the Secret Police? Approved!
And that's different from humans how? You raise a human to believe in [Insert Superstitious/Religious/Ideological Nonsense HERE], chances are *great* that they'll believe it. Raise a human to believe a historical fiction, chances are great they'll believe it. Humans don't have built in Objective Truth detectors.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
...And with all those fairy tales, it was actually USA who constantly approved all kind of experiments on unsuspecting American citizens, not USSR) Oh, those cold, harsh reality)
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,260
- Reaction score
- 3,208
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Oh, and the great advantage free, democratic capitalism have here? It does not need even to approve; the free market would do it by itself)
Euthanasia in Canada? Check!
US abuse of psychoterapeutic drugs? Check!
FBI being able to seize medical records? Check!
Come on Orionblamblam, the only differences is that A - capitalist system is much quicker in introducing everything you are so afraid of, and B - capitalist system would insist that you should pay money for this)
Actually, finding a solution for a well-defined problem is usually not a great creative achievement. Every average engineering time will find good solutions for a given a task. Creativity in engineering is more about finding the right questions and seeing potential where a new solution can create an advantage. The solution will usually pop out of your brain automatically…
Volkodav
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 28 March 2014
- Messages
- 652
- Reaction score
- 1,092
What I'm looking forward to is AI determining that neuro typical humans are inferior and dysfunctional and elevate the infinitely more logical, sane and capable neuro diverse population to their rightful place as global overlords.
- Status
