Interesting reading the RUSI report. It was Ukraine's won artillery, as much as anything we supplied, that allowed them to stop the initial Russian blitzkrieg in its tracks. But they were thereafter heavily dependent on western supplies.
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf ...Since March 2014, Ukraine has focused on recovering its artillery capabilities. As a result, five new artillery brigades and a separate artillery regiment of the Ground Forces were created, as well as one artillery brigade and a separate artillery regiment of the Navy. The 19th Separate Missile Brigade regenerated two additional battalions with tactical missile complex ‘Tochka-U’. All new combined arms brigades in the Ground Forces, as well as all brigades of the marines, received their own brigade artillery groups. By 2019, the number of artillery battalions had doubled. As of February 2022, the Missile Forces and Artillery (RViA) of the UAF had 10 brigades and one regiment as part of the Ground Forces, as well as one brigade and one regiment as part of the Navy. The UAF had 1,176 barrel artillery systems, of which 742 were 152-mm calibre systems, 421 were 122-mm howitzers, and 13 units were 203-mm systems. The RViA also fielded 1,680 MLRS of all calibres, as well as about 40 tactical missile systems ‘Tochka-U’. In terms of the number of artillery systems, Ukraine fielded the largest artillery force in Europe after Russia. The difference in numbers between Russian and Ukrainian artillery was not so significant at the beginning of the conflict: 2,433 barrel artillery systems against 1,176, and 3,547 MLRS against 1,680. The UAF had ammunition to support these systems in high-intensity warfighting for just over six weeks. Ammunition had been depleted by regular explosions at Ukrainian arsenals as a result of Russian sabotage. From 2014 to 2018, there were six such explosions, which destroyed more than 210,000 tonnes of ammunition, a large part of which were 152-mm shells and rockets for MLRS. For comparison, during the five years of the war in Donbas, the UAF spent about 70,000 tons of ammunition in total..
Clear evidence of long-term planning by Russia for the invasion.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
Interesting reading the RUSI report. It was Ukraine's won artillery, as much as anything we supplied, that allowed them to stop the initial Russian blitzkrieg in its tracks. But they were thereafter heavily dependent on western supplies.
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf ...Since March 2014, Ukraine has focused on recovering its artillery capabilities. As a result, five new artillery brigades and a separate artillery regiment of the Ground Forces were created, as well as one artillery brigade and a separate artillery regiment of the Navy. The 19th Separate Missile Brigade regenerated two additional battalions with tactical missile complex ‘Tochka-U’. All new combined arms brigades in the Ground Forces, as well as all brigades of the marines, received their own brigade artillery groups. By 2019, the number of artillery battalions had doubled. As of February 2022, the Missile Forces and Artillery (RViA) of the UAF had 10 brigades and one regiment as part of the Ground Forces, as well as one brigade and one regiment as part of the Navy. The UAF had 1,176 barrel artillery systems, of which 742 were 152-mm calibre systems, 421 were 122-mm howitzers, and 13 units were 203-mm systems. The RViA also fielded 1,680 MLRS of all calibres, as well as about 40 tactical missile systems ‘Tochka-U’. In terms of the number of artillery systems, Ukraine fielded the largest artillery force in Europe after Russia. The difference in numbers between Russian and Ukrainian artillery was not so significant at the beginning of the conflict: 2,433 barrel artillery systems against 1,176, and 3,547 MLRS against 1,680. The UAF had ammunition to support these systems in high-intensity warfighting for just over six weeks. Ammunition had been depleted by regular explosions at Ukrainian arsenals as a result of Russian sabotage. From 2014 to 2018, there were six such explosions, which destroyed more than 210,000 tonnes of ammunition, a large part of which were 152-mm shells and rockets for MLRS. For comparison, during the five years of the war in Donbas, the UAF spent about 70,000 tons of ammunition in total..
Clear evidence of long-term planning by Russia for the invasion.
Which makes their utter humiliation and failure even sweeter, of course.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Let people have a choice.
I think quantity is the deciding factor. A few items self checkout makes sense. A huge trolley full is quicker on manned till. It's worth mentioning that Lidl and Aldi have the lowest staff to customer ratios and they don't have any self check out tills.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Interesting reading the RUSI report. It was Ukraine's won artillery, as much as anything we supplied, that allowed them to stop the initial Russian blitzkrieg in its tracks. But they were thereafter heavily dependent on western supplies.
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf ...Since March 2014, Ukraine has focused on recovering its artillery capabilities. As a result, five new artillery brigades and a separate artillery regiment of the Ground Forces were created, as well as one artillery brigade and a separate artillery regiment of the Navy. The 19th Separate Missile Brigade regenerated two additional battalions with tactical missile complex ‘Tochka-U’. All new combined arms brigades in the Ground Forces, as well as all brigades of the marines, received their own brigade artillery groups. By 2019, the number of artillery battalions had doubled. As of February 2022, the Missile Forces and Artillery (RViA) of the UAF had 10 brigades and one regiment as part of the Ground Forces, as well as one brigade and one regiment as part of the Navy. The UAF had 1,176 barrel artillery systems, of which 742 were 152-mm calibre systems, 421 were 122-mm howitzers, and 13 units were 203-mm systems. The RViA also fielded 1,680 MLRS of all calibres, as well as about 40 tactical missile systems ‘Tochka-U’. In terms of the number of artillery systems, Ukraine fielded the largest artillery force in Europe after Russia. The difference in numbers between Russian and Ukrainian artillery was not so significant at the beginning of the conflict: 2,433 barrel artillery systems against 1,176, and 3,547 MLRS against 1,680. The UAF had ammunition to support these systems in high-intensity warfighting for just over six weeks. Ammunition had been depleted by regular explosions at Ukrainian arsenals as a result of Russian sabotage. From 2014 to 2018, there were six such explosions, which destroyed more than 210,000 tonnes of ammunition, a large part of which were 152-mm shells and rockets for MLRS. For comparison, during the five years of the war in Donbas, the UAF spent about 70,000 tons of ammunition in total..
Clear evidence of long-term planning by Russia for the invasion.
They knew something was coming, but not exactly what. Russian deception succeeded in disguising the attack on Kyiv - but at the expense of inadequately preparing their combat troops: ...A major threat, identified before the conflict, relevant to the defence of Kyiv or Donbas, was Russia’s long-range strike arsenal. As a result, beginning one week prior to the invasion and accelerated 72 hours before, munitions stockpiles were dispersed from the main arsenals. Aircraft and air-defence systems were also dispersed hours before the invasion. As it became apparent that the Gomel axis was the enemy’s main effort and that another group of forces would strike through Chernihiv, a redeployment of Ukrainian forces was ordered approximately seven hours prior to the invasion. This took considerable time. The result was that many Ukrainian units were not at their assigned defensive positions when the invasion began and, especially on the northern axes, were not in prepared positions. Redeployments from the southern axis towards Kyiv also left fewer troops to hold the coast. Ukrainian units found themselves in a meeting engagement with the enemy. The critical point here is that the war started with the AFRF holding the initiative at the operational level but with their tactical units surprised by what they were being ordered to do. The UAF found themselves surprised at the operational level but with tactical units which had been psychologically and practically preparing for this fight for eight years. The interaction between these variables would be decisive in determining the outcome of the first 72 hours of fighting...
OpenAi overloaded. Site down. AI singularity postponed for an hour or two
A chance for all the would-be users to do some of the creative work of the future.
By 2040, we'll all be sitting in Barbarella-like automated greenhouses, engaged on creative or community projects, or one of the minority doing the essential physical maintenance work to keep them running.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Autocomplete, when backed by the entire information of the internet, will appear incredibly clever.
If you tell it a joke, and ask it to explain it, it will find that some human has already done so, and will (effectively) crib the answer.
There's only one teenst-weensy problem with it, as it is now.
And that is that the GPT4 is piggybacking on the coda of human text out there.
Now imagine that the coda is GPT4 text. It becomes a little like Chinese whispers, because what GPT4 is doing is effectively regurgitating something someone has written. If it's regurgitating a regurgitation, it may well get ever more ridiculous.
OpenAi overloaded. Site down. AI singularity postponed for an hour or two
A chance for all the would-be users to do some of the creative work of the future.
By 2040, we'll all be sitting-in Barbarella-like automated greenhouses, engaged on creative or community projects, or doing the essential physical maintenance work to keep them running.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Let people have a choice.
Any studies yet into the rate of deception by those using self checkout? We've been forced to use them at the Uni CO-OP, and as a result I now will use them elsewhere. I would never deliberately steal anything but the temptation must be there for some people surely and I've never seen anyone get stopped and their shopping checked.
In theory I still like the idea of self-service - especially if I'm listening to something and I don't want to take my 'phones out. They are still quirky though; they struggle with very light items, and too many times I've been left standing gormlessly looking around for someone to come and approve a booze purchase for ages (to the point where if I'm buying beer I'll always go to a staffed checkout).
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Let people have a choice.
I think quantity is the deciding factor. A few items self checkout makes sense. A huge trolley full is quicker on manned till. It's worth mentioning that Lidl and Aldi have the lowest staff to customer ratios and they don't have any self check out tills.
Lidl does near me, I haven't been in an Aldi for a few years.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
All those are trivially easy. I would bet my house that a panel of professional art critics cannot rreliably distinguish machine beds and sharks from human.
Which misses the point completely. Would an AI artist come up with them, without human input.
Would a human artist come up with them, without human input? What is the difference?
...A critical weakness of the Russian strike campaign was battle damage assessment. First, the Russian military appears to have presumed that if an action had been ordered and carried out then it had succeeded, unless there was direct evidence to the contrary. Evidence of success appears to have disproportionately relied on three data points: confirmation from pilots that they hit their target; confirmation from Russian satellites that a site showed damage; and confirmation from signals intelligence (SIGINT) that Ukrainians reported a strike and damage to their equipment. Russian satellite reconnaissance proved very limited, even though Russian survey space reconnaissance of Ukraine has been conducted since at least 2012, and detailed reconnaissance, in the interests of invasion planning, since mid-2021. A probable reason for this may be the insufficient number of satellites in the orbital grouping of the VKS and the overestimation of their technical capabilities. Indirect confirmation of this explanation is provided by the fact that the AFRF began buying additional satellite images of the territory of Ukraine and individual military facilities on the world market in April 2022. One of the visible failures of satellite intelligence is the inability to detect on time a significant volume of strategic railway movements by the UAF, which, in March 2022 amounted to three–four echelons per day. The poor Russian battle damage assessment process made the Russian military highly vulnerable to deception, which has been consistent throughout the conflict. Early strikes on Ukrainian airfields, for example, destroyed many hangars. By photographing this damage and printing the resulting pattern on to sheets, it became possible to clear the rubble and erect covers for aircraft to return to the site, sheltering in positions that the Russians would confirm as destroyed. This led – somewhat amusingly – to the Russians debating whether Ukrainian fighter aircraft were operating from subterranean shelters at several sites...
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Let people have a choice.
I think quantity is the deciding factor. A few items self checkout makes sense. A huge trolley full is quicker on manned till. It's worth mentioning that Lidl and Aldi have the lowest staff to customer ratios and they don't have any self check out tills.
Lidl does near me, I haven't been in an Aldi for a few years.
Oh, that's new on me. I don't frequent them personally - local Coop does me.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
All technological innovations have brought the threat of vast unemployment. When farming mechanised, what were all the farm labourers to do? And yet we don't see armies of unemployed yokels still mooching sadly around the countryside. What will those replaced by AI do? I dunno. It could cause some pain in the short term, particularly given the speed of change AI could bring, But I'm fairly confident humanity will adapt and, importantly, find higher value uses of its time.
That's all very well if you think AI won't be capable of outperforming the average human being at most economically useful tasks. That's been the case up to now, but I don't see any reason to think it will continue to be the case.
Well it's getting there. Look at self service tills.
Customers doing for free what staff were previously paid to do.
I bet you'd have said the same thing when the first Piggly Wiggly opened.
Thing is, give me a hand held scanner to use as I pick the stuff off the shelves and I can scan better than an employee sitting behind a checkout. Just like then, the innovation is better for the customer.
There is clearly a demand for a 'full service' supermarket. See the popularity of click & collect and home delivery.
Sure. And now we have the full range of options. You use what works best for you, and I won't suggest anyone takes it away from you. I'll use what works best for me.
Proof is in the pudding. In my local supermarket I'd say now the vast majority of customers choose the self checkout while very few, predominantly elderly, customers use staffed checkouts.
Let people have a choice.
I think quantity is the deciding factor. A few items self checkout makes sense. A huge trolley full is quicker on manned till. It's worth mentioning that Lidl and Aldi have the lowest staff to customer ratios and they don't have any self check out tills.
Lidl does near me, I haven't been in an Aldi for a few years.
Oh, that's new on me. I don't frequent them personally - local Coop does me.
The other point is that regardless of size of shop, scan-as-you-shop knocks both self checkout and manned checkout into a cocked hat. Even with a big trolley full the ability to scan and bag correctly as you walk around the shop is massive.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
All those are trivially easy. I would bet my house that a panel of professional art critics cannot rreliably distinguish machine beds and sharks from human.
Which misses the point completely. Would an AI artist come up with them, without human input.
Would a human artist come up with them, without human input? What is the difference?
A human did, is the point. AI so far is only responding to human instruction, and drawing on the vast resources of data it can access.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
As I am thick, how did the internet kill photography? Is it not more likely digital cameras and now cameras on your phone?
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
There's a lot of frustrated, apparently out-of-work pro photographers posting some quite outstanding images on flickr. A disproportionate number seem to be from Italy, France and Greece, for some reason.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
All those are trivially easy. I would bet my house that a panel of professional art critics cannot rreliably distinguish machine beds and sharks from human.
Which misses the point completely. Would an AI artist come up with them, without human input.
Would a human artist come up with them, without human input? What is the difference?
A human did, is the point. AI so far is only responding to human instruction, and drawing on the vast resources of data it can access.
But that is what a human artist does. Use his or her knowledge of the art that went before, to make new art
I can absolutely believe AI could make art in the style of Damien Hirst. You need an outrageously pretentious title allied with a scary object with an unreal setting
A shark in formaldehyde
A skull encrusted with diamonds
Half a cow in a vitrine
Hirst uses an algorithm, that can be copied, and new algorithms can be invented
If OpenAI wasn't down I would ask it to suggest "new" Damien Hirst artworks, then entirely new conceptual art of its own
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
All those are trivially easy. I would bet my house that a panel of professional art critics cannot rreliably distinguish machine beds and sharks from human.
Which misses the point completely. Would an AI artist come up with them, without human input.
Would a human artist come up with them, without human input? What is the difference?
A human did, is the point. AI so far is only responding to human instruction, and drawing on the vast resources of data it can access.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
Sure: but while it took away from photography, it added new roles in pornography.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
All those are trivially easy. I would bet my house that a panel of professional art critics cannot rreliably distinguish machine beds and sharks from human.
Which misses the point completely. Would an AI artist come up with them, without human input.
Would a human artist come up with them, without human input? What is the difference?
A human did, is the point. AI so far is only responding to human instruction, and drawing on the vast resources of data it can access.
But that is what a human artist does. Use his or her knowledge of the art that went before, to make new art
I can absolutely believe AI could make art in the style of Damien Hirst. You need an outrageously pretentious title allied with a scary object with an unreal setting
A shark in formaldehyde
A skull encrusted with diamonds
Half a cow in a vitrine
Hirst uses an algorithm, that can be copied, and new algorithms can be invented
If OpenAI wasn't down I would ask it to suggest "new" Damien Hirst artworks, then entirely new conceptual art of its own
You have just given it the instruction though. My point is where does the spark come from?
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
As I am thick, how did the internet kill photography? Is it not more likely digital cameras and now cameras on your phone?
All sorts of art forms are in decline. Music is the obvious one, but Cinematograhy is the most damaged. Photography is still strong, but it's all about tricky to get to places - a lot of water.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
As I am thick, how did the internet kill photography? Is it not more likely digital cameras and now cameras on your phone?
Google Images and Flickr for a start. = Immediate access to trillions of online images that amateurs are happy to give away for free, or for pennies
A lot of photographers relied on income from stock imagery. The internet destroyed that ecosystem entirely. And so on
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
All those are trivially easy. I would bet my house that a panel of professional art critics cannot rreliably distinguish machine beds and sharks from human.
Which misses the point completely. Would an AI artist come up with them, without human input.
Would a human artist come up with them, without human input? What is the difference?
A human did, is the point. AI so far is only responding to human instruction, and drawing on the vast resources of data it can access.
What are the humans doing, over and above that?
Art has revolutions. The first person to paint images with perspective. Look at Egyptian art, and then early medieval. At some point someone started to make art that has a sense of depth.
Art is challenging - modernism, cubism, impressionism all came from a spark of ingenuity. Art is not just people doing something that others have done.
Seems as though @Dura_Ace wasn't entirely correct in thinking there was no SEADS effort. ...The fastest component of the Russian force to adapt was the VKS. From D+3, Russian aircraft began to change their tactics. Rather than flying single sorties to strike pre-designated targets, large strike packages of interceptors and aircraft armed with anti-radiation missiles would form up in an attempt to provoke Ukrainian air defences into illuminating. These would then be suppressed with anti-radiation missiles and hunted by Russian aircraft or helicopters at low level. The latter suffered heavy attrition to MANPADS employing these tactics and the depth of aviation operations gradually diminished...
I really don't care at all about this Hussey story.
Old lady (who probably shouldn't still be working) may have been inappropriate, but it's also possible that there's some manufactured outrage.
Old lady lost job.
Have I missed anything?
Yes, the sound of someone getting vast amounts of publicity by whingeing about said old lady being nasty to her.
If twitter is to belived, her real name is very english sounding indeed.
If someone is interested enough in their background to change their name and start wearing traditional african clothes, it is odd that they would not want to talk about their heritage.
Having said all that, Hussey's behaviour in pushing and pushing was plainly unacceptable.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
In the old days, taking a photo cost money. There was film. There were expensive lenses. There was the requirement to develop the film. And any retouching was hideously expensive.
Now everyone has a smartphone with a camera better than a Canon SLR with an L lens back in 2000. People can take photos as zero cost. And then algorithms will sort out any issues with photos.
The result is that there are now gazillions of photos available of everything for free.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
In the old days, taking a photo cost money. There was film. There were expensive lenses. There was the requirement to develop the film. And any retouching was hideously expensive.
Now everyone has a smartphone with a camera better than a Canon SLR with an L lens back in 2000. People can take photos as zero cost. And then algorithms will sort out any issues with photos.
The result is that there are now gazillions of photos available of everything for free.
AND THAT'S GOOD.
Flickr, for instance, has some absolute gold, sometimes by real professionals, given away for free, in amongst reams and reams of rubbish. Soundcloud is somewhat similar.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
All those are trivially easy. I would bet my house that a panel of professional art critics cannot rreliably distinguish machine beds and sharks from human.
Which misses the point completely. Would an AI artist come up with them, without human input.
Would a human artist come up with them, without human input? What is the difference?
A human did, is the point. AI so far is only responding to human instruction, and drawing on the vast resources of data it can access.
But that is what a human artist does. Use his or her knowledge of the art that went before, to make new art
I can absolutely believe AI could make art in the style of Damien Hirst. You need an outrageously pretentious title allied with a scary object with an unreal setting
A shark in formaldehyde
A skull encrusted with diamonds
Half a cow in a vitrine
Hirst uses an algorithm, that can be copied, and new algorithms can be invented
If OpenAI wasn't down I would ask it to suggest "new" Damien Hirst artworks, then entirely new conceptual art of its own
You have just given it the instruction though. My point is where does the spark come from?
AI is showing signs of "imagination". or something so close to it that we won't tell the difference
Look again at the images in that Spectator piece. Esp the last one, the screaming albino child
The prompt - apparently - did not ask for almost any of this. AI added the second child, the weird red and white colouring, the bizarre wounded nipples, also the excellent composition: the second child smaller and out of focus, etc etc
Is that imagination? Looks and feels like it. And the result is a stunning image
All you gotta do is get the AI to prompt itself, or have two AIs meet: DALLE-3 and GPT5. Tell them "make scary images", then just sit back as the robot pours out endless spooky images, like the first automated loom in Manchester splurging cloth
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
As I am thick, how did the internet kill photography? Is it not more likely digital cameras and now cameras on your phone?
Google Images and Flickr for a start. = Immediate access to trillions of online images that amateurs are happy to give away for free, or for pennies
A lot of photographers relied on income from stock imagery. The internet destroyed that ecosystem entirely. And so on
No it didn't - I know several people who make pretty good livings from stock photography work.
I really don't care at all about this Hussey story.
Old lady (who probably shouldn't still be working) may have been inappropriate, but it's also possible that there's some manufactured outrage.
Old lady lost job.
Have I missed anything?
I suppose that choosing such a lady to mentor Meghan into the family, and be William's Godmother might raise a concern that possibly embedded racism in the Royal household is a thing.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
I work in marketing/advertising, and a disruption to this industry is no doubt going to happen, but I can't see it happening soon. You'd think - "make an advert that builds on x,y,z pieces of research, achieves these outcomes, works across n+1 media, satisfies a,b,c internal stakeholders, complies with all relative laws in all territories, and fulfils copyright and rights etc." may one day be a question AI can answer as well as people - but I'm not sure when (or why). Probably it will start at the the more modest end for small businesses - but even then there will be some potentially very risky aspects around copyright, and I would imagine that the big agencies will want to develop their own proprietary AI (or more likely buy someone else out).
Incidentally a fair few photographers still make a decent living doing commercial work - not just from a shoot itself, but the subsequent usage fees.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
As I am thick, how did the internet kill photography? Is it not more likely digital cameras and now cameras on your phone?
Google Images and Flickr for a start. = Immediate access to trillions of online images that amateurs are happy to give away for free, or for pennies
A lot of photographers relied on income from stock imagery. The internet destroyed that ecosystem entirely. And so on
No it didn't - I know several people who make pretty good livings from stock photography work.
Fair enough, if that's your experience. It is not mine: and I know quite a few photographers
And I think my experience is more common
"Most photographers I’ve talked to who have had images with Getty since before 2006 are earning 10% or less of what they were earning in 2006 despite the fact that they have contributed many new images since that time."
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
In the old days, taking a photo cost money. There was film. There were expensive lenses. There was the requirement to develop the film. And any retouching was hideously expensive.
Now everyone has a smartphone with a camera better than a Canon SLR with an L lens back in 2000. People can take photos as zero cost. And then algorithms will sort out any issues with photos.
The result is that there are now gazillions of photos available of everything for free.
AND THAT'S GOOD.
I tend to agree in the round, and over the long term. But it's not GOOD for photographers, is it?
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Nor does it mean it was.
True, in theory. That said, I've read one participant's report of the conversation and if that is accurate, it's difficult to argue that it's not racist in effect even if not in intention.
And that's why the royal family has apologised and "asked" Hussey to retire.
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
Some aspects of law are surely ripe for automation by AI. It's hard (for a non-lawyer like me) to imagine that conveyancing, for example, is reliant on the spark of human cogitation.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
The lady that refused to answer the question has a conscious racial bias in assuming that the question is racist when asked by a white
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
The lady that refused to answer the question has a conscious racial bias in assuming that the question is racist when asked by a white
In the old days, taking a photo cost money. There was film. There were expensive lenses. There was the requirement to develop the film. And any retouching was hideously expensive.
Now everyone has a smartphone with a camera better than a Canon SLR with an L lens back in 2000. People can take photos as zero cost. And then algorithms will sort out any issues with photos.
The result is that there are now gazillions of photos available of everything for free.
AND THAT'S GOOD.
I tend to agree in the round, and over the long term. But it's not GOOD for photographers, is it?
The spinning jenny wasn't good for weavers, nor was the automobile good for blacksmiths. Technology marches on and may make us redundant, but our children will invent new things to do.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Nor does it mean it was.
True, in theory. That said, I've read one participant's report of the conversation and if that is accurate, it's difficult to argue that it's not racist in effect even if not in intention.
And that's why the royal family has apologised and "asked" Hussey to retire.
The first bit is true in fact, not in theory. I don't know the details, no do I care. The idea that some spun-up odd-person, invited to a free bash, could find offence in the flailing attempts at conversation from an old lady, can make national news rather baffles me.
Seems as though @Dura_Ace wasn't entirely correct in thinking there was no SEADS effort. ...The fastest component of the Russian force to adapt was the VKS. From D+3, Russian aircraft began to change their tactics. Rather than flying single sorties to strike pre-designated targets, large strike packages of interceptors and aircraft armed with anti-radiation missiles would form up in an attempt to provoke Ukrainian air defences into illuminating. These would then be suppressed with anti-radiation missiles and hunted by Russian aircraft or helicopters at low level. The latter suffered heavy attrition to MANPADS employing these tactics and the depth of aviation operations gradually diminished...
Though they weren't helped by being subordinated to ground forces command. ...Even though the Russians had both airborne command posts in the form of Il-20 Coot aircraft and AWACS orbits provided by A-50M, the coordination of air operations was subordinated to the military district command posts of the Ground Forces rather than the VKS. Rather than running operations from a central combined air-operations centre, coordination of air tasking was managed by ground-based C2 and planned separately by air armies assigned to support each operational group of forces. Another aspect of Russia’s air campaign is that the initial targets were prioritised according to the extent that they enabled the Ground Force’s seizure of critical infrastructure. After the Ground Forces began to struggle to make progress, Russian airpower shifted from targeting air-defence sites to win control of the air and instead attempted to provide increasing levels of close air support. The depth of penetration decreased and became tied to the Ground Forces’ axes of advance. Thus, not only C2, but also the logic of prioritisation of air targets, was disproportionately shaped by the tactical challenges faced by the Ground Forces, arguably at the expense of the VKS planning to bring about control of the air...
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
The lady that refused to answer the question has a conscious racial bias in assuming that the question is racist when asked by a white
She answered the question!
She knew what the geriatric was actually asking her
Seems as though @Dura_Ace wasn't entirely correct in thinking there was no SEADS effort. ...The fastest component of the Russian force to adapt was the VKS. From D+3, Russian aircraft began to change their tactics. Rather than flying single sorties to strike pre-designated targets, large strike packages of interceptors and aircraft armed with anti-radiation missiles would form up in an attempt to provoke Ukrainian air defences into illuminating. These would then be suppressed with anti-radiation missiles and hunted by Russian aircraft or helicopters at low level. The latter suffered heavy attrition to MANPADS employing these tactics and the depth of aviation operations gradually diminished...
Though they weren't helped by being subordinated to ground forces command. ...Even though the Russians had both airborne command posts in the form of Il-20 Coot aircraft and AWACS orbits provided by A-50M, the coordination of air operations was subordinated to the military district command posts of the Ground Forces rather than the VKS. Rather than running operations from a central combined air-operations centre, coordination of air tasking was managed by ground-based C2 and planned separately by air armies assigned to support each operational group of forces. Another aspect of Russia’s air campaign is that the initial targets were prioritised according to the extent that they enabled the Ground Force’s seizure of critical infrastructure. After the Ground Forces began to struggle to make progress, Russian airpower shifted from targeting air-defence sites to win control of the air and instead attempted to provide increasing levels of close air support. The depth of penetration decreased and became tied to the Ground Forces’ axes of advance. Thus, not only C2, but also the logic of prioritisation of air targets, was disproportionately shaped by the tactical challenges faced by the Ground Forces, arguably at the expense of the VKS planning to bring about control of the air...
They are also a bit shit. ...Although the weaknesses of the BTG were the most evident, similar issues have bedevilled other Russian branches, most notably the VKS. Ukrainian assessments concluded that given limited flight hours and the practice of training being delivered in units, the VKS entered the conflict with fewer than 100 fully trained and current pilots. Combined with a military culture that assigns the most dangerous missions to the most experienced crews, attrition in the VKS has fallen disproportionately on this cadre, reducing the overall effectiveness of the force and its ability to train new pilots. In negotiations over prisoner exchanges, the AFRF have been eager for the return of experienced pilots. The mobilisation of trainers from their flying schools to frontline formations has also hampered the ability to generate new pilots. The Ukrainian military has noted a rise in both very young and very old pilots in the VKS, with ageing pilots returned to frontline service. This has corresponded with a significant reduction in the scale and complexity of VKS air operations over Ukraine since the beginning of the conflict. It is also a problem that has affected ground crews, for example with the discovery of left-on covers on the sensors of Russian aviation operating over Ukraine, an easily avoided mistake which has a severe impact on effectiveness and should be considered negligence. This suggests challenges in discipline and junior leadership among maintenance crews in the VKS. Another demonstration of this poor discipline in the VKS is the routine stacking of munitions next to aircraft on Russian air bases..
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
Enough with the reeling and writhing and fainting in coils. It is at the very worst tactless and intrusive. You are happy to exist in a blokish yeah the footie world, which is a culture where ape grunts and banana waving and go-back-to-Africa are common currency. Why not work on recognising and shunning conscious racism before embarking on the unconscious biases, and before hectoring very old ladies for very slight errors of judgment?
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Nor does it mean it was.
True, in theory. That said, I've read one participant's report of the conversation and if that is accurate, it's difficult to argue that it's not racist in effect even if not in intention.
And that's why the royal family has apologised and "asked" Hussey to retire.
The first bit is true in fact, not in theory. I don't know the details, no do I care. The idea that some spun-up odd-person, invited to a free bash, could find offence in the flailing attempts at conversation from an old lady, can make national news rather baffles me.
In the old days, taking a photo cost money. There was film. There were expensive lenses. There was the requirement to develop the film. And any retouching was hideously expensive.
Now everyone has a smartphone with a camera better than a Canon SLR with an L lens back in 2000. People can take photos as zero cost. And then algorithms will sort out any issues with photos.
The result is that there are now gazillions of photos available of everything for free.
AND THAT'S GOOD.
I tend to agree in the round, and over the long term. But it's not GOOD for photographers, is it?
It's not the job of the government to protect producers.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
The lady that refused to answer the question has a conscious racial bias in assuming that the question is racist when asked by a white
Quite. People's feelings are entirely personal. They're based on the individual's perceptions and life experiences up to that point. We cannot deploy laws and change rules of behaviour in an attempt to stop someone from feeling something. It would be an impossible and endless task, because feelings do not have parameters and are not 'satisfied' after a certain amount of work. In fact they grow rather than abate when one focuses on them. The concept of trying to reflect that in law is simply mad.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
Enough with the reeling and writhing and fainting in coils. It is at the very worst tactless and intrusive. You are happy to exist in a blokish yeah the footie world, which is a culture where ape grunts and banana waving and go-back-to-Africa are common currency. Why not work on recognising and shunning conscious racism before embarking on the unconscious biases, and before hectoring very old ladies for very slight errors of judgment?
I have been going to football matches for 20 years at Leicester City, and have never heard racist remarks or abuse from the crowd.
When you definitely don't want to get asked where you're from when you visit the Palace, you just try to blend in
Right?
I don't find anything particularly remarkable about her appearance.
Not compared to what some people wear in Royal situations
If he turned up at my house dressed like that, I'd definitely ask him where he was from
I might say something like, 'You c..ermine, your Majesty.'
S'toatally acceptable dress, for Carnarvon. That crown is definitely for receiving transmissions from epsilon Eridani relayed by the mother ship, though.
When you definitely don't want to get asked where you're from when you visit the Palace, you just try to blend in
Right?
I don't find anything particularly remarkable about her appearance.
Not compared to what some people wear in Royal situations
If he turned up at my house dressed like that, I'd definitely ask him where he was from
I might say something like, 'You c..ermine, your Majesty.'
S'toatally acceptable dress, for Carnarvon. That crown is definitely for receiving transmissions from epsilon Eridani relayed by the mother ship, though.
I do feel a tiny bit sorry for him.
We saw l-ots of people dressed like that, but they still look like fools.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
The lady that refused to answer the question has a conscious racial bias in assuming that the question is racist when asked by a white
Quite. People's feelings are entirely personal. They're based on the individual's perceptions and life experiences up to that point. We cannot deploy laws and change rules of behaviour in an attempt to stop someone from feeling something. It would be an impossible and endless task, because feelings do not have parameters and are not 'satisfied' after a certain amount of work. In fact they grow rather than abate when one focuses on them. The concept of trying to reflect that in law is simply mad.
There are two sides to the coin.
People should avoid deliberately giving offence.
In return, people should avoid taking offence when it's clear none was intended.
When you definitely don't want to get asked where you're from when you visit the Palace, you just try to blend in
Right?
I don't find anything particularly remarkable about her appearance.
Not compared to what some people wear in Royal situations
If he turned up at my house dressed like that, I'd definitely ask him where he was from
I might say something like, 'You c..ermine, your Majesty.'
S'toatally acceptable dress, for Carnarvon. That crown is definitely for receiving transmissions from epsilon Eridani relayed by the mother ship, though.
I do feel a tiny bit sorry for him.
It's a horrible crown. No doubt intended to be an example of thrusting modern Britain back in the 70's or whenever it was made.
"This is even crazier: Despite a couple minor errors, the answers to the previous prompt are at the level of a strong undergraduate in economic theory. The explanations of Nash equilibrium refinements, and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem are particularly well done. Great work!"
"I have helped run an AI-based entrepreneurship program for years, written papers on the econ of AI, and follow the field quite closely. Nonetheless, I am *shocked* by how good OpenAI's new chat (https://chat.openai.com/chat) is. E.g., you can no longer give take-home exams/homework."
Every schooldchild/student will be able to tap their essay question into GPT4 and get excellent results. How on earth do you stop that? This is a revolution in education
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
The lady that refused to answer the question has a conscious racial bias in assuming that the question is racist when asked by a white
She answered the question!
She knew what the geriatric was actually asking her
From the quoted exchange (the general gist of which I hear has been corroborated) she certainly did not initially, I think.
Lady SH: Where are you from?
Me: Sistah Space. [she, reasonably, thinks the question is which organisation.]
SH: No, where do you come from?
Me: We're based in Hackney. [she still thinks the question is about the organisation]
SH: No, what part of Africa are you from?
Me: I don't know, they didn't leave any records. [Here, she answers the actual question, as far as she is able]
SH: Well, you must know where you're from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?
Me: Here, the UK. [yes, she does indeed know where she is from]
SH: No, but what nationality are you?
Me: I am born here and am British. [again, answering the question]
SH: No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?
Me: 'My people', lady, what is this?
SH: Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you're from. When did you first come here?
Me: Lady! I am a British national, my parents came here in the 50s when... [again, aswers the question]
SH: Oh, I knew we'd get there in the end, you're Caribbean!
Me: No lady, I am of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality. [Again, answers the question]
SH: Oh so you're from...
So, that's what - 7 times she directly and truthfully answered the question asked? 5 if you discount the first two responses where she seems to misinterpret the question (but in a reasonable way).
I don't think Hussey is being nasty, although she is rude to pursue it in the way she does. It rather seems to show that she cannot comprehend that someone black, dressed in what may be seen as a African style, is British.
This is why it's seen as a bigger problem. It's not one nasty/racist person, it reflects that probably many in similar positions have not the faintest clue about what being British encompasses today. I do feel a bit sorry for Hussey for being singled out here, as it could probably have been (and may well have been, on different occasions) any number of people. I also feel sorry for Fulani as any skeletons in her closet, irrelevant as they may be to the issue, will no doubt be shortly dug up by the media and paraded for all to see.
Seems as though @Dura_Ace wasn't entirely correct in thinking there was no SEADS effort. ...The fastest component of the Russian force to adapt was the VKS. From D+3, Russian aircraft began to change their tactics. Rather than flying single sorties to strike pre-designated targets, large strike packages of interceptors and aircraft armed with anti-radiation missiles would form up in an attempt to provoke Ukrainian air defences into illuminating. These would then be suppressed with anti-radiation missiles and hunted by Russian aircraft or helicopters at low level. The latter suffered heavy attrition to MANPADS employing these tactics and the depth of aviation operations gradually diminished...
Looks like Russian spies finally got access to Mallory' Big Wing.....
Interesting reading the RUSI report. It was Ukraine's won artillery, as much as anything we supplied, that allowed them to stop the initial Russian blitzkrieg in its tracks. But they were thereafter heavily dependent on western supplies.
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf ...Since March 2014, Ukraine has focused on recovering its artillery capabilities. As a result, five new artillery brigades and a separate artillery regiment of the Ground Forces were created, as well as one artillery brigade and a separate artillery regiment of the Navy. The 19th Separate Missile Brigade regenerated two additional battalions with tactical missile complex ‘Tochka-U’. All new combined arms brigades in the Ground Forces, as well as all brigades of the marines, received their own brigade artillery groups. By 2019, the number of artillery battalions had doubled. As of February 2022, the Missile Forces and Artillery (RViA) of the UAF had 10 brigades and one regiment as part of the Ground Forces, as well as one brigade and one regiment as part of the Navy. The UAF had 1,176 barrel artillery systems, of which 742 were 152-mm calibre systems, 421 were 122-mm howitzers, and 13 units were 203-mm systems. The RViA also fielded 1,680 MLRS of all calibres, as well as about 40 tactical missile systems ‘Tochka-U’. In terms of the number of artillery systems, Ukraine fielded the largest artillery force in Europe after Russia. The difference in numbers between Russian and Ukrainian artillery was not so significant at the beginning of the conflict: 2,433 barrel artillery systems against 1,176, and 3,547 MLRS against 1,680. The UAF had ammunition to support these systems in high-intensity warfighting for just over six weeks. Ammunition had been depleted by regular explosions at Ukrainian arsenals as a result of Russian sabotage. From 2014 to 2018, there were six such explosions, which destroyed more than 210,000 tonnes of ammunition, a large part of which were 152-mm shells and rockets for MLRS. For comparison, during the five years of the war in Donbas, the UAF spent about 70,000 tons of ammunition in total..
Clear evidence of long-term planning by Russia for the invasion.
I'm a tactical voter in Chester that usually votes Labour but for the reasons Mike has given will be voting with my heart this time. I am also probably unusual so I guess Mike will be right but if there are enough like me we could perhaps see the LDs take 2nd which would be interesting!
Can anyone enlighten me? I've always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but Ngozi Fulani's complaints seem way over the top to me.
Of course, a lot of it would depend on the exact words and the way in which they were said, but essentially Lady Hussey was asking where her family came from. That's such a commonplace topic of discussion among the English upper classes that I wonder if part of the outrage is just a cultural misunderstanding (certainly Ms Fulani doesn't seem to understand that "your people" would be synonymous with "your family" for someone like Lady Hussey).
Taken one way, "where do you really come from" could be read as "you're not really British". But couldn't it just as easily mean "where do your roots really lie?" Maybe Ms Fulani doesn't think in those terms, but to my mind it brought to mind something Julia Sawalha reminisced about (on "Who Do You Think You Are?" if I remember correctly). A friend said to her something like "I know you have Arab ancestry but you're not really Arab", and she thought about it and commented "Yes, I really am".
Fulani started with a satirical masterstroke ("they didn't leave records") but then lost it.
To be fair to her, anyone is going to feel flustered and out of their comfort zone at a Royal reception. But also, to be fair to lady H, I was at various social goings on at a Scottish university yesterday and pretty much every one of a dozen casual conversations with lots of nationalities converged rapidly on Where are you from? Where are your people from? (I was dressed in a kilt). These are hardwired into human encounters with strangers: who are you, where from, who was your dad, did he have a guest friendship with my dad?
I must say I thought the thought the thing Ngozi Fulani was quoted as saying that was clearly ridiculous was that people suggesting that allowance should be made for Lady Hussey's age were being disrespectful to her (Lady H) and "ageist". That seems too much like saying disability benefit should be abolished because it's "ableist".
What unmitigated bollocks. A bit like your covid19 rants.
If you're still working or functioning in an official capacity you need to be be held to professional standards which includes not being racist to those you're meeting in a professional capacity while representing the state.
No allowances should be made for saying someone is too old to know better. If you're so old that you can no longer function professionally without engaging in racist abuse you don't need to have allowances made for your abuse to be acceptable, you need to retire.
Yes, Barty. Fun as it is to shout at old ladies, this is fundamentally a HR issue. She has plainly been addled for decades and should have been taken off public facing duties, certainly post hmq demise. This is a cock up by Good But Thick King Charles. After his inkpot performance we can be confident some unfortunate underling is getting it hard in the neck.
And don't pointlessly exaggerate. Whatever this is, it isn't abuse of any kind.
Repeatedly demanding to know where people are from, even after they've told you, not taking Britain for an answer, absolutely is racist abuse.
Even thirty years ago people knew this sort of behaviour wasn't right. I seem to recall an advert on TV when I was a young child (late 80s or very early 90s) with from memory Frank Bruno for HP sauce where he gets asked in a supermarket where he's from by someone and he answers London.
Take the answer you're given. Pressing repeatedly afterwards would have been rude thirty years ago and is utterly unacceptable and beyond the pale today. Especially in a professional capacity.
I'm a woke leftie, and I thought it was terrible, obvious racism. But then, I would, wouldn't I. My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled. When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
I don't think anyone is denying that, are they?
Some people on here seem to think it an innocuous enquiry.
I think people have said that it was meant innocuously - I certainly think that's probably the case. That doesn't mean it wasn't racist.
Oh, absolutely. That is why we have unconscious bias training in order to reasses what we think is innocuous to uncover unexamined racist biases.
The lady that refused to answer the question has a conscious racial bias in assuming that the question is racist when asked by a white
She answered the question!
She knew what the geriatric was actually asking her
From the quoted exchange (the general gist of which I hear has been corroborated) she certainly did not initially, I think.
Lady SH: Where are you from?
Me: Sistah Space. [she, reasonably, thinks the question is which organisation.]
SH: No, where do you come from?
Me: We're based in Hackney. [she still thinks the question is about the organisation]
SH: No, what part of Africa are you from?
Me: I don't know, they didn't leave any records. [Here, she answers the actual question, as far as she is able]
SH: Well, you must know where you're from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?
Me: Here, the UK. [yes, she does indeed know where she is from]
SH: No, but what nationality are you?
Me: I am born here and am British. [again, answering the question]
SH: No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?
Me: 'My people', lady, what is this?
SH: Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you're from. When did you first come here?
Me: Lady! I am a British national, my parents came here in the 50s when... [again, aswers the question]
SH: Oh, I knew we'd get there in the end, you're Caribbean!
Me: No lady, I am of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality. [Again, answers the question]
SH: Oh so you're from...
So, that's what - 7 times she directly and truthfully answered the question asked? 5 if you discount the first two responses where she seems to misinterpret the question (but in a reasonable way).
I don't think Hussey is being nasty, although she is rude to pursue it in the way she does. It rather seems to show that she cannot comprehend that someone black, dressed in what may be seen as a African style, is British.
This is why it's seen as a bigger problem. It's not one nasty/racist person, it reflects that probably many in similar positions have not the faintest clue about what being British encompasses today. I do feel a bit sorry for Hussey for being singled out here, as it could probably have been (and may well have been, on different occasions) any number of people. I also feel sorry for Fulani as any skeletons in her closet, irrelevant as they may be to the issue, will no doubt be shortly dug up by the media and paraded for all to see.
She does indeed answer the questions, I'll give her that
It certainly doesn't read as the five minutes of hostile interrogation that I heard she'd claimed was her ordeal
And if you dress up in African dress and meet a geriatric who's been to Africa many times..
Initial thoughts: my god. It’s phenomenal. It is going to put about 200 million people out of a job. And this is before lunch
It is also potentially a Google killer. It will do all your net searching for you
chat.openai.com was down when I visited.
If I get a chance to chat with it, I will ask it why it doesn't f*** off. I'll report back on its reply. A simple enough question for such a complicated machine.
The statement by Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, was embarrassingly juvenile and programmery. This is what he wrote:
"language interfaces are going to be a big deal, i think. talk to the computer (voice or text) and get what you want, for increasingly complex definitions of "want"!"
But yes, further leaps in tech-mediated mass deskilling - both intellectual and emotional - are planned.
AI has the potential to solve the worst human problems. Yet it will bring many more - including vast amounts of unemployment, esp in bourgeois jobs
I very tentatively welcome it, with grave reservations
This chatbot reminds me of early DALL-E. it’s on a leash, it’s repetitive and restricted. But you can sense the power. Within a year of DALL-E we had Stable Diffusion and Midjourney
If AI leads to mass unemployment, especially of permanent non shortterm contract jobs, then a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on the companies that bring in that AI is inevitable
Increasingly, I believe some of UBI is inevitable. AI will be that good. So it will soon displace hundreds of millions of workers. They won't all be able to retrain as masseurs or vicars
I'm interested in which jobs you think are specifically at risk from AI. Call centre jobs? Already happens to some extent with chat bots, but often leads or needs human intervention. I am not at all convinced of creativity from AI's - what we see is responses to human inputs, and then human appreciation and curation of the results. Are millions of jobs at risk? Or thousands? Genuine question.
Of course AI can be creative. I cite this excellent Spectator article. A couple of those images are absolutely chilling, and any graphic designer/artist would be delighted with these results, if they had made them. But a computer made them in 10 seconds. It took a human to prompt, but that one human - armed with skilful prompts - will eventually replace 20 humans who used to do the art-making
The same goes for anything that involves pictures, words, design - you can extrapolate for yourself. GPT4 will also replace tons of lower-mid-level white collar stuff like solicitors, editors, translators, news journalists, basic architects, designers and researchers, because GPT4 (and 5 and 6 and on) will be cheaper, faster, and better than humans
In fact the harder you think the harder it is to conceive of a white collar/creative job that is NOT threatened
Some high level art will remain desirably human, because people will want the human touch. Like artisanal bread over normal bread. Any job requiring physical and emotional interaction should be fine. For now
So, as I say, vicars and masseurs get lucky
I can't see it, but maybe I am the luddite. As a creative yourself, you surely know that the image is not the art? Would an AI create Tracey Emin's bed? Or a Gormley? Or put a shark in a tank of formaldehyde?
How is AI going to replace a solicitor? Editor?
I give you translators.
Which journalistic roles will be done by AI?
Ultimately as before with other revolutions jobs will change. We don't seem to be moving yet into the realms of not working, mainly because without money there is no fun in life. I also worry about a world without work - what purpose will people find in their lives? I know a lot of people hate work, or hate their job, but would they like the alternative? What level of life would be achieved if automation and AI took over all the jobs?
Much low level journalism is already generated by AI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
I work in science, not tech. I can operate state of the art scientific equipment, but I also know its limits. Over the years I've been in my current role automation has changed my day to day (less hands on required) and I now do more useful things. The job is still here, but it has changed.
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
Yes, I genuinely fear for my "people with my role" in the future. I've seen, in my career, what the internet did to photography - basically destroyed it as a profession for most (and the new AI image generators will make this even worse) - and I reckon the exact same process will unfold across all the creative industries
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
Some aspects of law are surely ripe for automation by AI. It's hard (for a non-lawyer like me) to imagine that conveyancing, for example, is reliant on the spark of human cogitation.
Perhaps, but if the AI doesn't notice something that needs to be addressed - like access rights, say - then who is liable when mistakes are made?
It implies the need for a full defence review in the near future, as we need to spend our limited cash prioritising quite different kit to that which is headlined now. And implies a rather different force structure, too.
Don't know that fat Wallace is up to fighting the battles with the defence establishment that are going to be needed.
Since we are still talking about it, is the story really more about royal ruthlessness? (Though if the discussion was as reported I'd put it slightly above a micro aggression personally, since it crosses into disbelieving someone's answer and badgering them). I mean they swiftly dismissed the Queen’s lady-in-waiting (and Prince William’s godmother) after what was a *microaggression* made in old age. Her own close friends and after decades of service. Bye, bye, Aunty Sue. That doesn’t seem like an endemically racist institution. https://twitter.com/residentadviser/status/1598336887730700289?cxt=HHwWgoC8icu7t64sAAAA
Comments
https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/polis/JournalismAI
Don't you actually work in tech? Apols if I've got that wrong. You are curiously Luddite, if that's the right word. Because I'm not sure it is. There should be a word for "someone unable to extrapolate the implications of new technology", not "someone who wants to smash up looms"
I'm gonna ask GPT4 for a new word
Right?
OpenAi overloaded. Site down. AI singularity postponed for an hour or two
You haven't really answered the creavity question - yes the outputs we have seen are great, but they also seem to be curated, and are as a result of prompts.
As a writer of the occasional piece yourself, do you really fear for the role in the future? Personally I think the human element will always be needed.
No doubt the world will keep changing, and people will adapt.
...A major threat, identified before the conflict, relevant to the defence of Kyiv or Donbas, was Russia’s long-range strike arsenal. As a result, beginning one week prior to the invasion and accelerated 72 hours before, munitions stockpiles were dispersed from the main arsenals. Aircraft and air-defence systems were also dispersed hours before the invasion. As it became apparent that the Gomel axis was the enemy’s main effort and that another group of forces would strike through Chernihiv, a redeployment of Ukrainian forces was ordered approximately seven hours prior to the invasion. This took considerable time. The result was that many Ukrainian units were not at their assigned defensive positions when the invasion began and, especially on the northern axes, were not in prepared positions. Redeployments from the southern axis towards Kyiv also left fewer troops to hold the coast. Ukrainian units found themselves in a meeting engagement with the enemy. The critical point here is that the war started with the AFRF holding the initiative at the operational level but with their tactical units surprised by what they were being ordered to do. The UAF found themselves surprised at the operational level but with tactical units which had been psychologically and practically preparing for this fight for eight years. The interaction between these variables would be decisive in determining the outcome of the first 72 hours of fighting...
"US gun sales spiked during pandemic and continue to rise
First-time buyers make up more than one-fifth of Americans who purchased guns amid huge number of firearms already circulating"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/31/us-gun-sales-rise-pandemic
By 2040, we'll all be sitting in Barbarella-like automated greenhouses, engaged on creative or community projects, or one of the minority doing the essential physical maintenance work to keep them running.
Or perhaps not.
If you tell it a joke, and ask it to explain it, it will find that some human has already done so, and will (effectively) crib the answer.
There's only one teenst-weensy problem with it, as it is now.
And that is that the GPT4 is piggybacking on the coda of human text out there.
Now imagine that the coda is GPT4 text. It becomes a little like Chinese whispers, because what GPT4 is doing is effectively regurgitating something someone has written. If it's regurgitating a regurgitation, it may well get ever more ridiculous.
...A critical weakness of the Russian strike campaign was battle damage assessment. First, the Russian military appears to have presumed that if an action had been ordered and carried out then it had succeeded, unless there was direct evidence to the contrary. Evidence of success appears to have disproportionately relied on three data points: confirmation from pilots that they hit their target; confirmation from Russian satellites that a site showed damage; and confirmation from signals intelligence (SIGINT) that Ukrainians reported a strike and damage to their equipment. Russian satellite reconnaissance proved very limited, even though Russian survey space reconnaissance of Ukraine has been conducted since at least 2012, and detailed reconnaissance, in the interests of invasion planning, since mid-2021. A probable reason for this may be the insufficient number of satellites in the orbital grouping of the VKS and the overestimation of their technical capabilities. Indirect confirmation of this explanation is provided by the fact that the AFRF began buying additional satellite images of the territory of Ukraine and individual military facilities on the world market in April 2022. One of the visible failures of satellite intelligence is the inability to detect on time a significant volume of strategic railway movements by the UAF, which, in March 2022 amounted to three–four echelons per day.
The poor Russian battle damage assessment process made the Russian military highly vulnerable to deception, which has been consistent throughout the conflict. Early strikes on Ukrainian airfields, for example, destroyed many hangars. By photographing this damage and printing the resulting pattern on to sheets, it became possible to clear the rubble and erect covers for aircraft to return to the site, sheltering in positions that the Russians would confirm as destroyed. This led – somewhat amusingly – to the Russians debating whether Ukrainian fighter aircraft were operating from subterranean shelters at several sites...
There are still some photographers left. They are either very niche (like war photographers - it is hard to automate that), or famous portrait/design photographers, usually with an established name and a brand, or private income, or all of that
Most everyday togs have been driven out of the industry, the money isn't there any more
Read across for writers, designers, illustrators, and the rest. Those at the very top, the famous ones, or the highly specialised, will likely survive, the majority of jobs will go. I don't like this. It is arguably tragic. I fear it is inevitable
If true, would that make her a racist?
Old lady (who probably shouldn't still be working) may have been inappropriate, but it's also possible that there's some manufactured outrage.
Old lady lost job.
Have I missed anything?
I can absolutely believe AI could make art in the style of Damien Hirst. You need an outrageously pretentious title allied with a scary object with an unreal setting
A shark in formaldehyde
A skull encrusted with diamonds
Half a cow in a vitrine
Hirst uses an algorithm, that can be copied, and new algorithms can be invented
If OpenAI wasn't down I would ask it to suggest "new" Damien Hirst artworks, then entirely new conceptual art of its own
A lot of photographers relied on income from stock imagery. The internet destroyed that ecosystem entirely. And so on
Art is challenging - modernism, cubism, impressionism all came from a spark of ingenuity. Art is not just people doing something that others have done.
...The fastest component of the Russian force to adapt was the VKS. From D+3, Russian aircraft began to change their tactics. Rather than flying single sorties to strike pre-designated targets, large strike packages of interceptors and aircraft armed with anti-radiation missiles would form up in an attempt to provoke Ukrainian air defences into illuminating. These would then be suppressed with anti-radiation missiles and hunted by Russian aircraft or helicopters at low level. The latter suffered heavy attrition to MANPADS employing these tactics and the depth of aviation operations gradually diminished...
If someone is interested enough in their background to change their name and start wearing traditional african clothes, it is odd that they would not want to talk about their heritage.
Having said all that, Hussey's behaviour in pushing and pushing was plainly unacceptable.
My wife, who is not very political at all and probably isn't entirely sure what woke means, read it last night, and was utterly appalled.
When I got to work at lunchtime, I check with my Daily Mail-reading, proud Tory colleague. And she was incandescent about it.
Yep, it was racist.
Now everyone has a smartphone with a camera better than a Canon SLR with an L lens back in 2000. People can take photos as zero cost. And then algorithms will sort out any issues with photos.
The result is that there are now gazillions of photos available of everything for free.
AND THAT'S GOOD.
Total expenditure £138k
of which
Salaries £27k
Operational costs £20k
Admin £47k
Utilities/maintenance/supplies £27k
Actual spending on projects £17k (12%).
Look again at the images in that Spectator piece. Esp the last one, the screaming albino child
The prompt - apparently - did not ask for almost any of this. AI added the second child, the weird red and white colouring, the bizarre wounded nipples, also the excellent composition: the second child smaller and out of focus, etc etc
Is that imagination? Looks and feels like it. And the result is a stunning image
All you gotta do is get the AI to prompt itself, or have two AIs meet: DALLE-3 and GPT5. Tell them "make scary images", then just sit back as the robot pours out endless spooky images, like the first automated loom in Manchester splurging cloth
Not compared to what some people wear in Royal situations
If Hussey is like this, what are the others like?
I asked an AI to describe a cat and then I put the AI's description of a cat into an AI image generator. https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1598196295927152641/photo/1
Incidentally a fair few photographers still make a decent living doing commercial work - not just from a shoot itself, but the subsequent usage fees.
And I think my experience is more common
"Most photographers I’ve talked to who have had images with Getty since before 2006 are earning 10% or less of what they were earning in 2006 despite the fact that they have contributed many new images since that time."
https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/stock-photographys-historic-earnings-decline
https://www.olapic.com/resources/the-death-of-stock-photos/
And that's why the royal family has apologised and "asked" Hussey to retire.
...Even though the Russians had both airborne command posts in the form of Il-20 Coot aircraft and AWACS orbits provided by A-50M, the coordination of air operations was subordinated to the military district command posts of the Ground Forces rather than the VKS. Rather than running operations from a central combined air-operations centre, coordination of air tasking was managed by ground-based C2 and planned separately by air armies assigned to support each operational group of forces.
Another aspect of Russia’s air campaign is that the initial targets were prioritised according to the extent that they enabled the Ground Force’s seizure of critical infrastructure. After the Ground Forces began to struggle to make progress, Russian airpower shifted from targeting air-defence sites to win control of the air and instead attempted to provide increasing levels of close air support. The depth of penetration decreased and became tied to the Ground Forces’ axes of advance. Thus, not only C2, but also the logic of prioritisation of air targets, was disproportionately shaped by the tactical challenges faced by the Ground Forces, arguably at the expense of the VKS planning to bring about control of the air...
...Although the weaknesses of the BTG were the most evident, similar issues have bedevilled other Russian branches, most notably the VKS. Ukrainian assessments concluded that given limited flight hours and the practice of training being delivered in units, the VKS entered the conflict with fewer than 100 fully trained and current pilots. Combined with a military culture that assigns the most dangerous missions to the most experienced crews, attrition in the VKS has fallen disproportionately on this cadre, reducing the overall effectiveness of the force and its ability to train new pilots. In negotiations over prisoner exchanges, the AFRF have been eager for the return of experienced pilots. The mobilisation of trainers from their flying schools to frontline formations has also hampered the ability to generate new pilots. The Ukrainian military has noted a rise in both very young and very old pilots in the VKS, with ageing pilots returned to frontline service. This has corresponded with a significant reduction in the scale and complexity of VKS air operations over Ukraine since the beginning of the conflict. It is also a problem that has affected ground crews, for example with the discovery of left-on covers on the sensors of Russian aviation operating over Ukraine, an easily avoided mistake which has a severe impact on effectiveness and should be considered negligence. This suggests challenges in discipline and junior leadership among maintenance crews in the VKS. Another demonstration of this poor discipline in the VKS is the routine stacking of munitions next to aircraft on Russian air bases..
It may be different elsewhere.
I do feel a tiny bit sorry for him.
Or would that be even more insidiously racist?
People should avoid deliberately giving offence.
In return, people should avoid taking offence when it's clear none was intended.
It's name, heritage, preferred pronoun and sexual orientation.
Then, when you've got the important stuff out of the way, you can get on with ordering the takeaway.
"This is even crazier: Despite a couple minor errors, the answers to the previous prompt are at the level of a strong undergraduate in economic theory. The explanations of Nash equilibrium refinements, and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem are particularly well done. Great work!"
"I have helped run an AI-based entrepreneurship program for years, written papers on the econ of AI, and follow the field quite closely. Nonetheless, I am *shocked* by how good OpenAI's new chat (https://chat.openai.com/chat) is. E.g., you can no longer give take-home exams/homework."
https://twitter.com/Afinetheorem/status/1598154630063529985?s=20&t=4SiW1rEhKs5LzRY7e_dt7w
Every schooldchild/student will be able to tap their essay question into GPT4 and get excellent results. How on earth do you stop that? This is a revolution in education
Lady SH: Where are you from?
Me: Sistah Space. [she, reasonably, thinks the question is which organisation.]
SH: No, where do you come from?
Me: We're based in Hackney. [she still thinks the question is about the organisation]
SH: No, what part of Africa are you from?
Me: I don't know, they didn't leave any records. [Here, she answers the actual question, as far as she is able]
SH: Well, you must know where you're from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?
Me: Here, the UK. [yes, she does indeed know where she is from]
SH: No, but what nationality are you?
Me: I am born here and am British. [again, answering the question]
SH: No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?
Me: 'My people', lady, what is this?
SH: Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you're from. When did you first come here?
Me: Lady! I am a British national, my parents came here in the 50s when... [again, aswers the question]
SH: Oh, I knew we'd get there in the end, you're Caribbean!
Me: No lady, I am of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality. [Again, answers the question]
SH: Oh so you're from...
So, that's what - 7 times she directly and truthfully answered the question asked? 5 if you discount the first two responses where she seems to misinterpret the question (but in a reasonable way).
I don't think Hussey is being nasty, although she is rude to pursue it in the way she does. It rather seems to show that she cannot comprehend that someone black, dressed in what may be seen as a African style, is British.
This is why it's seen as a bigger problem. It's not one nasty/racist person, it reflects that probably many in similar positions have not the faintest clue about what being British encompasses today. I do feel a bit sorry for Hussey for being singled out here, as it could probably have been (and may well have been, on different occasions) any number of people. I also feel sorry for Fulani as any skeletons in her closet, irrelevant as they may be to the issue, will no doubt be shortly dug up by the media and paraded for all to see.
Nice to have another 3 Leicester players returning uninjured, with time for a rest before the PL restarts.
You get one guess:
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-11-29/emily-bridges-why-ive-made-a-documentary-about-my-transgender-journey
It certainly doesn't read as the five minutes of hostile interrogation that I heard she'd claimed was her ordeal
And if you dress up in African dress and meet a geriatric who's been to Africa many times..
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf
It implies the need for a full defence review in the near future, as we need to spend our limited cash prioritising quite different kit to that which is headlined now.
And implies a rather different force structure, too.
Don't know that fat Wallace is up to fighting the battles with the defence establishment that are going to be needed.
I mean they swiftly dismissed the Queen’s lady-in-waiting (and Prince William’s godmother) after what was a *microaggression* made in old age. Her own close friends and after decades of service. Bye, bye, Aunty Sue. That doesn’t seem like an endemically racist institution.
https://twitter.com/residentadviser/status/1598336887730700289?cxt=HHwWgoC8icu7t64sAAAA