You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
The reversibility is incomplete and not fully known. Consequences can include permanent infertility, possible issues with bone density, permanent (possibly) changes - compared to what would have happened - to voice etc.
(Should not be taken as total criticism, blockers are almost certainly the right thing for some people, but they shouldn't be seen as a casual, reversible, delay of puberty to buy time. Their use has life-long consequences, which are not yet fully understood. It's a hell of a decision to take in your early teens though, either way - choosing to take them has lifelong consequences; so does choosing not to.)
When were they seen as 'casual' ?
The reality is that there are no consequence choice free choices for transgender kids; it is about balancing risks and benefits. The reality is also that many of those teens wouldn't get a consultation and referral for treatment before they turn 18 anyway, given the length of waiting lists.
I agree completely with the second paragraph.
Re the 'casual' comment, it comes from a former clinician (psychologist) at the Tavistock. The comment (from the clinician) was that there was a period at least when they were seen as without consequence and would be handed out with very little investigation, or while psychological evaluation was ongoing, partly - as you rightly point out - due to the delays in treatment and the obvious time pressures of puberty.
Giving puberty blockers to a young person who is not really transgender but has other issues is likely a terrible idea. Not giving puberty blockers to a young person who really is transgender (and, indeed, may well have other issues) is likely a terrible idea.
Problem is, how do you tell one from the other? That's hard, but we should at least have a better understanding of the implications of providing puberty blockers (and not providing puberty blockers) so that can be considered in the decision. In most fields of medicine there is a pretty good idea of what an offered therapy will do, the pros and cons. Here, it's a lot more sketchy.
Interesting that Carlotta is liking all these posts - I see us as some way apart on transgender issues in general.
I'm not, for example, particularly upset by the Scotland gender bill (partly because I haven't looked at it closely, maybe, maybe because I'm not in Scotland, maybe because I'm a man and so I don't really get the single sex spaces thing to the full extent that I should) although I do think there are some parts they should have taken greater care over.
On the child stuff though, the state of the evidence is shocking. As an epidemiologist, largely concerned with children, that upsets me - clinicians and scientists have failed badly here, imho. We should have better answers on what's best to do.
I doubt we are that far apart. As a scientist I’ve been shocked by the poor quality and almost complete absence of data on the treatment of children. The “affirmative care” (sic) model is an abomination and the Swedish approach of not privileging one outcome over another is to be welcomed, especially given the suggestion that many/most gender dysphoric youth end up same-sex attracted.
There’s a reason some trans activists demand “no debate” and the similar approach pursued by the Scottish government - who boast of the length of their “consultation” (sic) on the GRR but omit to mention they ignored most critical voices is why they are in the mess they are in.
There are also terrible studies on the other side. Both sides seem to start with the answer they want and then try to design a study/sample and/or adjust the analysis to get the answer they want.
Complete nightmare for anyone trying to write sensible guidance...
It's going to be a long time before there are any useful results, though.
What happened about Javid's plan last year to legislate to set aside medical confidentiality for those who had been through treatment, for the benefit of researchers ?
Indeed.
The legislation (just a statutory instrument to provide an exception to the GRA, under provisions already in the GRA, I think) happened, so it is now legal to link data pre- and post-registered transition and the research will probably happen (that was the legal barrier - it would have been illegal to link pre- and post-transition data as tat would disclose the previous gender of a transitioned person, a bit problematic when you want to look at outcomes of treatment and control for pre-transition demographics/comorbidities etc.
However, Javid's (or supporters' on his behalf) jostling for the Con leadership around that time and leaks to the press about getting tough on the Tavistock etc etc has possibly poisoned the well a bit. He/supporters publicly saying (more or less) the purpose was to expose what a bad job the Tavistock was doing/how bad current practice was has, I'm told, led to an increased number of people exercising their national opt-outs from having their data used in research. If these are people who were served well* by the Tavistock then that will tend to skew any findings.
*or indeed, people served badly, skewing the other way. But media reports suggesting the purpose was to do a hatchet job on the Tavistock would preferentially put off those with a better opinion of the Tavistock, you'd think, even though that just makes that outcome more likely.
ETA: Not necessarily a very long time - we're talking retrospective data analysis at the population level, not a trial or prospective followup. So could be more like 12-18 months for useful findings.
Gas prices falling (Amsterdam futures); at 55 from a high of 340-odd in August. Below where it was in early February last year, *but* two or three times greater than it was five years ago.
Interesting that the price rises started in 2020 or 2021.
Warm winter plus full storage will do that.
And supply moving towards excess as a result of the above. Apparently, more LNG shipping capacity showed up sooner than was expected, as well.
It’s quite the achievement, that Europe has managed to wean itself almost completely off Russian O&G imports in less than 12 months.
Even when the war is over, those export revenues aren’t ever coming back to the Russians.
What happens to Russia long term? Its future doesn't have many antecedents. A huge continental empire - largest country in the world - with a shrinking population and starved of its main source of export income. Even if it massively ramps up exports to India and China it is selling a hydrocarbon resource that the world is committed to phasing out over the next few decades.
Too much land, not enough people; too much ambition, not enough money. Yet they want yet more land in Ukraine. One thing they already have too much of. Imagine Canada trying to pick up a bit of Michigan because it needs more lebensraum.
Does Russia long term become the world's biggest experiment in rewilding?
People have said that Putin was after the people in Ukraine as much as the land. 100 million immigrants from Nigeria and India would transform Russia in several ways. Could create a much younger, dynamic country.
Well yes, I don't seriously think their war aim is square kms of land. They don't get many people either even in their best case scenario, and those people are part of the same low fertility rate declining Eastern European demography.
As you say, mass migration into what is largely an empty country rapidly warming over the next few decades could create an economic powerhouse. But with blood and soil nationalists anywhere near the Kremlin that just won't happen.
Their best case scenario last February was taking over the whole country. That would have increased their population by almost a third.
They were never going to annex the whole country though. Annex the (fairly populated) Donbas and parts of the (sparser) South, then bring the rest of the country into Vichy status with Yanukovich back in power, like Belarus.
It seems mostly about power and control. Abusive partner behaviour.
It's different now but I thought Plan A was blitzkrieg and Kyiv falling in 72 hours?
Gas prices falling (Amsterdam futures); at 55 from a high of 340-odd in August. Below where it was in early February last year, *but* two or three times greater than it was five years ago.
Interesting that the price rises started in 2020 or 2021.
Warm winter plus full storage will do that.
And supply moving towards excess as a result of the above. Apparently, more LNG shipping capacity showed up sooner than was expected, as well.
It’s quite the achievement, that Europe has managed to wean itself almost completely off Russian O&G imports in less than 12 months.
Even when the war is over, those export revenues aren’t ever coming back to the Russians.
What happens to Russia long term? Its future doesn't have many antecedents. A huge continental empire - largest country in the world - with a shrinking population and starved of its main source of export income. Even if it massively ramps up exports to India and China it is selling a hydrocarbon resource that the world is committed to phasing out over the next few decades.
Too much land, not enough people; too much ambition, not enough money. Yet they want yet more land in Ukraine. One thing they already have too much of. Imagine Canada trying to pick up a bit of Michigan because it needs more lebensraum.
Does Russia long term become the world's biggest experiment in rewilding?
Also remember that anyone with entrepreneurial spirit, or dollars in the bank, has got the hell out of there in the last ten months, and most of them don’t intend returning any time soon. Among the middle classes of Moscow still there, many are considering their options as the effects of the sanctions affect them more personally.
Their economy is screwed for at least a couple of decades, militarily defeated and with sanctions limiting their chance to import capital equipment to recover, it’s not inconceivable that they revert to an economy based mostly on subsistence farming.
Funnily enough, a young Chinese friend who has resources and spirit has just moved from England (after over 10 years there) to Moscow. Which I found a strange decision, but apparently it's "exciting and full of opportunities"
Having done some more thinking on this, it’s quite possible that one of few few opportunities in 2023-2025 Moscow, is going to be for the Chinese to extend their ‘belt and road’ well into Russia.
There is a Russian/Chinese JV to build the Meridian toll road from the Kazakh border to Belarus. Once it's complete it's supposed to be possible to drive from Shanghai to Hamburg in 11 days. (50+ days in any JLR product)
Sounds like the making of a Eurasian Cannonball Run. First team to get a car from Shanghai to Hamburg in 5 days, under its own power, wins a prize?
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
Gas prices falling (Amsterdam futures); at 55 from a high of 340-odd in August. Below where it was in early February last year, *but* two or three times greater than it was five years ago.
Interesting that the price rises started in 2020 or 2021.
Warm winter plus full storage will do that.
And supply moving towards excess as a result of the above. Apparently, more LNG shipping capacity showed up sooner than was expected, as well.
It’s quite the achievement, that Europe has managed to wean itself almost completely off Russian O&G imports in less than 12 months.
Even when the war is over, those export revenues aren’t ever coming back to the Russians.
What happens to Russia long term? Its future doesn't have many antecedents. A huge continental empire - largest country in the world - with a shrinking population and starved of its main source of export income. Even if it massively ramps up exports to India and China it is selling a hydrocarbon resource that the world is committed to phasing out over the next few decades.
Too much land, not enough people; too much ambition, not enough money. Yet they want yet more land in Ukraine. One thing they already have too much of. Imagine Canada trying to pick up a bit of Michigan because it needs more lebensraum.
Does Russia long term become the world's biggest experiment in rewilding?
Also remember that anyone with entrepreneurial spirit, or dollars in the bank, has got the hell out of there in the last ten months, and most of them don’t intend returning any time soon. Among the middle classes of Moscow still there, many are considering their options as the effects of the sanctions affect them more personally.
Their economy is screwed for at least a couple of decades, militarily defeated and with sanctions limiting their chance to import capital equipment to recover, it’s not inconceivable that they revert to an economy based mostly on subsistence farming.
Funnily enough, a young Chinese friend who has resources and spirit has just moved from England (after over 10 years there) to Moscow. Which I found a strange decision, but apparently it's "exciting and full of opportunities"
Having done some more thinking on this, it’s quite possible that one of few few opportunities in 2023-2025 Moscow, is going to be for the Chinese to extend their ‘belt and road’ well into Russia.
There is a Russian/Chinese JV to build the Meridian toll road from the Kazakh border to Belarus. Once it's complete it's supposed to be possible to drive from Shanghai to Hamburg in 11 days. (50+ days in any JLR product)
Sounds like the making of a Eurasian Cannonball Run. First team to get a car from Shanghai to Hamburg in 5 days, under its own power, wins a prize?
EV allowed?
Of course allowed. Won’t be competitive though, EVs are very inefficient at high speeds, and the petrol-powered competitors add extra fuel tanks in the boot, to extend range and minimise time lost to fuel stops.
The US Cannonball Run ‘record’, set in the middle of the pandemic, is 25h39m for the 2,905 mile distance. The EV ‘record’, in a country with generally good EV infrastructure, is 42h17m.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
"Alarmed by A.I. Chatbots, Universities Start Revamping How They Teach With the rise of the popular new chatbot ChatGPT, colleges are restructuring some courses and taking preventive measures."
Remember, ChatGPT has only been with us six weeks. This is unprecedented change at such speed. And it could accelerate
I mentioned yesterday how children of friends of mine are using it to write essays at Uni.
Imagine paying all that money for a degree and then not doing the work. They're in for a shock when they do their finals. And when they enter the labour market and realise they have failed to develop their ability to think.
Paradoxically they might be more well adapted to the labour market where delivering results ultimately matters more than credentials. A lot of people struggle to understand that qualifications don't have any intrinsic value outside specific professions.
It's not the qualification, it's the ability to absorb information, evaluate competing theories and present your views in a way that makes sense. If "delivering results" just means cutting and pasting off the Internet then it's a bullshit job and you're vulnerable to getting replaced once your boss figures out you are adding no value.
Sure, but that's just your caricature of how people are using ChatGPT.
If someone wants to cheat, they will cheat. Most lose in the long term, and many lose in the short. It has ever been thus, and will continue into the near and far future
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
The reversibility is incomplete and not fully known. Consequences can include permanent infertility, possible issues with bone density, permanent (possibly) changes - compared to what would have happened - to voice etc.
(Should not be taken as total criticism, blockers are almost certainly the right thing for some people, but they shouldn't be seen as a casual, reversible, delay of puberty to buy time. Their use has life-long consequences, which are not yet fully understood. It's a hell of a decision to take in your early teens though, either way - choosing to take them has lifelong consequences; so does choosing not to.)
When were they seen as 'casual' ?
The reality is that there are no consequence choice free choices for transgender kids; it is about balancing risks and benefits. The reality is also that many of those teens wouldn't get a consultation and referral for treatment before they turn 18 anyway, given the length of waiting lists.
I agree completely with the second paragraph.
Re the 'casual' comment, it comes from a former clinician (psychologist) at the Tavistock. The comment (from the clinician) was that there was a period at least when they were seen as without consequence and would be handed out with very little investigation, or while psychological evaluation was ongoing, partly - as you rightly point out - due to the delays in treatment and the obvious time pressures of puberty.
Giving puberty blockers to a young person who is not really transgender but has other issues is likely a terrible idea. Not giving puberty blockers to a young person who really is transgender (and, indeed, may well have other issues) is likely a terrible idea.
Problem is, how do you tell one from the other? That's hard, but we should at least have a better understanding of the implications of providing puberty blockers (and not providing puberty blockers) so that can be considered in the decision. In most fields of medicine there is a pretty good idea of what an offered therapy will do, the pros and cons. Here, it's a lot more sketchy.
Interesting that Carlotta is liking all these posts - I see us as some way apart on transgender issues in general.
I'm not, for example, particularly upset by the Scotland gender bill (partly because I haven't looked at it closely, maybe, maybe because I'm not in Scotland, maybe because I'm a man and so I don't really get the single sex spaces thing to the full extent that I should) although I do think there are some parts they should have taken greater care over.
On the child stuff though, the state of the evidence is shocking. As an epidemiologist, largely concerned with children, that upsets me - clinicians and scientists have failed badly here, imho. We should have better answers on what's best to do.
I doubt we are that far apart. As a scientist I’ve been shocked by the poor quality and almost complete absence of data on the treatment of children. The “affirmative care” (sic) model is an abomination and the Swedish approach of not privileging one outcome over another is to be welcomed, especially given the suggestion that many/most gender dysphoric youth end up same-sex attracted.
There’s a reason some trans activists demand “no debate” and the similar approach pursued by the Scottish government - who boast of the length of their “consultation” (sic) on the GRR but omit to mention they ignored most critical voices is why they are in the mess they are in.
There are also terrible studies on the other side. Both sides seem to start with the answer they want and then try to design a study/sample and/or adjust the analysis to get the answer they want.
Complete nightmare for anyone trying to write sensible guidance...
It's going to be a long time before there are any useful results, though.
What happened about Javid's plan last year to legislate to set aside medical confidentiality for those who had been through treatment, for the benefit of researchers ?
Indeed.
The legislation (just a statutory instrument to provide an exception to the GRA, under provisions already in the GRA, I think) happened, so it is now legal to link data pre- and post-registered transition and the research will probably happen (that was the legal barrier - it would have been illegal to link pre- and post-transition data as tat would disclose the previous gender of a transitioned person, a bit problematic when you want to look at outcomes of treatment and control for pre-transition demographics/comorbidities etc.
However, Javid's (or supporters' on his behalf) jostling for the Con leadership around that time and leaks to the press about getting tough on the Tavistock etc etc has possibly poisoned the well a bit. He/supporters publicly saying (more or less) the purpose was to expose what a bad job the Tavistock was doing/how bad current practice was has, I'm told, led to an increased number of people exercising their national opt-outs from having their data used in research. If these are people who were served well* by the Tavistock then that will tend to skew any findings.
*or indeed, people served badly, skewing the other way. But media reports suggesting the purpose was to do a hatchet job on the Tavistock would preferentially put off those with a better opinion of the Tavistock, you'd think, even though that just makes that outcome more likely.
ETA: Not necessarily a very long time - we're talking retrospective data analysis at the population level, not a trial or prospective followup. So could be more like 12-18 months for useful findings.
Thanks - it's hard to find much useful reporting on the issue. If we're talking about going term side effects of puberty blockers (which was where this kicked off), is the retrospective data likely to be of much use unless there are really strong signals ?
Anecdotally, the Javid stuff does seem to have poisoned the well.
Gas prices falling (Amsterdam futures); at 55 from a high of 340-odd in August. Below where it was in early February last year, *but* two or three times greater than it was five years ago.
Interesting that the price rises started in 2020 or 2021.
Warm winter plus full storage will do that.
And supply moving towards excess as a result of the above. Apparently, more LNG shipping capacity showed up sooner than was expected, as well.
It’s quite the achievement, that Europe has managed to wean itself almost completely off Russian O&G imports in less than 12 months.
Even when the war is over, those export revenues aren’t ever coming back to the Russians.
What happens to Russia long term? Its future doesn't have many antecedents. A huge continental empire - largest country in the world - with a shrinking population and starved of its main source of export income. Even if it massively ramps up exports to India and China it is selling a hydrocarbon resource that the world is committed to phasing out over the next few decades.
Too much land, not enough people; too much ambition, not enough money. Yet they want yet more land in Ukraine. One thing they already have too much of. Imagine Canada trying to pick up a bit of Michigan because it needs more lebensraum.
Does Russia long term become the world's biggest experiment in rewilding?
People have said that Putin was after the people in Ukraine as much as the land. 100 million immigrants from Nigeria and India would transform Russia in several ways. Could create a much younger, dynamic country.
Well yes, I don't seriously think their war aim is square kms of land. They don't get many people either even in their best case scenario, and those people are part of the same low fertility rate declining Eastern European demography.
As you say, mass migration into what is largely an empty country rapidly warming over the next few decades could create an economic powerhouse. But with blood and soil nationalists anywhere near the Kremlin that just won't happen.
Their best case scenario last February was taking over the whole country. That would have increased their population by almost a third.
They were never going to annex the whole country though. Annex the (fairly populated) Donbas and parts of the (sparser) South, then bring the rest of the country into Vichy status with Yanukovich back in power, like Belarus.
It seems mostly about power and control. Abusive partner behaviour.
It's different now but I thought Plan A was blitzkrieg and Kyiv falling in 72 hours?
Falling yes, total military victory, but then installing Yanukovich (who was waiting in Belarus ready to return in triumph to Kiev) as a Ukrainian Petain / Quisling. The distinction is between Russian control - such as was the case for say Poland or East Germany during the cold war and is currently the case in Belarus - and Russian annexation.
Another one bites the dust, thanks in part to a government which believes supporting industry is about issuing press releases and not hard cash.
Another bit of levelling up in the toilet.
I wonder who will feast on the carcass.
It was a joke project from the very beginning - no logical UK customer was signed up or showed much interest.
The more one looks at the team behind the project, the more one gets the impression that the plan was primarily to get a large pile of government cash, more than it was to actually build a commercially viable factory. Government picking winners, tends to attract such undesirable behaviours.
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
I think I saw someone on twitter suggest that Leopards would be the best option. Never happen of course for ‘cultural’ reasons, but it would be highly entertaining.
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
IIRC he was advocating buying all the old Challenger 1 from Jordan and sending them as well. 400…
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
There are a quite a lot of us who are quite moderate in most of our political views who are very suspicious of the motivations and intentions of union leaders/vested interests. The fact that a lot of people in the country have not yet seen that yet does not mean to say that enough of them won't before the next election.
You are fairly moderate for a tory, yes, but I've picked up some club chair whisky soda harumphing about the Unions from you from time to time. Fair enough - you need some true blue instincts otherwise you'll be lost in no man's land - but I think it's a bit 1980s. The unions are focused on decent pay rises not revolution. I think most of the public can see that. If we get a General Strike led by Mick Lynch, ok then it might be game on, but as it is, nurses, doctors, teachers, I don't see much hope for an 'enemy within' narrative. But they have to try, I suppose.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
Lol. Of course they are investing in it. They are investing in all AI and machine learning applications. Most people who are involved in tech are investing in it, including myself, which I guess makes me not an expert, but probably more of one than a PB conspiracy theory obsessive from PB such as yourself, no offence intended old chap.
By the way, contrary to your advice back in December, I have booked two skiing hols now in spite of your suggestion that we would all be vaporised before I managed to get to the slopes. Thanks for the advice though, but rather glad I didn't take heed.
Gas prices falling (Amsterdam futures); at 55 from a high of 340-odd in August. Below where it was in early February last year, *but* two or three times greater than it was five years ago.
Interesting that the price rises started in 2020 or 2021.
Warm winter plus full storage will do that.
And supply moving towards excess as a result of the above. Apparently, more LNG shipping capacity showed up sooner than was expected, as well.
It’s quite the achievement, that Europe has managed to wean itself almost completely off Russian O&G imports in less than 12 months.
Even when the war is over, those export revenues aren’t ever coming back to the Russians.
What happens to Russia long term? Its future doesn't have many antecedents. A huge continental empire - largest country in the world - with a shrinking population and starved of its main source of export income. Even if it massively ramps up exports to India and China it is selling a hydrocarbon resource that the world is committed to phasing out over the next few decades.
Too much land, not enough people; too much ambition, not enough money. Yet they want yet more land in Ukraine. One thing they already have too much of. Imagine Canada trying to pick up a bit of Michigan because it needs more lebensraum.
Does Russia long term become the world's biggest experiment in rewilding?
Also remember that anyone with entrepreneurial spirit, or dollars in the bank, has got the hell out of there in the last ten months, and most of them don’t intend returning any time soon. Among the middle classes of Moscow still there, many are considering their options as the effects of the sanctions affect them more personally.
Their economy is screwed for at least a couple of decades, militarily defeated and with sanctions limiting their chance to import capital equipment to recover, it’s not inconceivable that they revert to an economy based mostly on subsistence farming.
Funnily enough, a young Chinese friend who has resources and spirit has just moved from England (after over 10 years there) to Moscow. Which I found a strange decision, but apparently it's "exciting and full of opportunities"
Having done some more thinking on this, it’s quite possible that one of few few opportunities in 2023-2025 Moscow, is going to be for the Chinese to extend their ‘belt and road’ well into Russia.
There is a Russian/Chinese JV to build the Meridian toll road from the Kazakh border to Belarus. Once it's complete it's supposed to be possible to drive from Shanghai to Hamburg in 11 days. (50+ days in any JLR product)
Sounds like the making of a Eurasian Cannonball Run. First team to get a car from Shanghai to Hamburg in 5 days, under its own power, wins a prize?
EV allowed?
Of course allowed. Won’t be competitive though, EVs are very inefficient at high speeds, and the petrol-powered competitors add extra fuel tanks in the boot, to extend range and minimise time lost to fuel stops.
The US Cannonball Run ‘record’, set in the middle of the pandemic, is 25h39m for the 2,905 mile distance. The EV ‘record’, in a country with generally good EV infrastructure, is 42h17m.
Elder son, who worked for many years with FOM is now doing something with Formula E. Doesn’t think it’s quite as exciting, though. Yet.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
There are a quite a lot of us who are quite moderate in most of our political views who are very suspicious of the motivations and intentions of union leaders/vested interests. The fact that a lot of people in the country have not yet seen that yet does not mean to say that enough of them won't before the next election.
You are fairly moderate for a tory, yes, but I've picked up some club chair whisky soda harumphing about the Unions from you from time to time. Fair enough - you need some true blue instincts otherwise you'll be lost in no man's land - but I think it's a bit 1980s. The unions are focused on decent pay rises not revolution. I think most of the public can see that. If we get a General Strike led by Mick Lynch, ok then it might be game on, but as it is, nurses, doctors, teachers, I don't see much hope for an 'enemy within' narrative. But they have to try, I suppose.
Of course they have to give it a go. They're not going to run on their record in office.
Gas prices falling (Amsterdam futures); at 55 from a high of 340-odd in August. Below where it was in early February last year, *but* two or three times greater than it was five years ago.
Interesting that the price rises started in 2020 or 2021.
Warm winter plus full storage will do that.
And supply moving towards excess as a result of the above. Apparently, more LNG shipping capacity showed up sooner than was expected, as well.
It’s quite the achievement, that Europe has managed to wean itself almost completely off Russian O&G imports in less than 12 months.
Even when the war is over, those export revenues aren’t ever coming back to the Russians.
What happens to Russia long term? Its future doesn't have many antecedents. A huge continental empire - largest country in the world - with a shrinking population and starved of its main source of export income. Even if it massively ramps up exports to India and China it is selling a hydrocarbon resource that the world is committed to phasing out over the next few decades.
Too much land, not enough people; too much ambition, not enough money. Yet they want yet more land in Ukraine. One thing they already have too much of. Imagine Canada trying to pick up a bit of Michigan because it needs more lebensraum.
Does Russia long term become the world's biggest experiment in rewilding?
Also remember that anyone with entrepreneurial spirit, or dollars in the bank, has got the hell out of there in the last ten months, and most of them don’t intend returning any time soon. Among the middle classes of Moscow still there, many are considering their options as the effects of the sanctions affect them more personally.
Their economy is screwed for at least a couple of decades, militarily defeated and with sanctions limiting their chance to import capital equipment to recover, it’s not inconceivable that they revert to an economy based mostly on subsistence farming.
Funnily enough, a young Chinese friend who has resources and spirit has just moved from England (after over 10 years there) to Moscow. Which I found a strange decision, but apparently it's "exciting and full of opportunities"
Having done some more thinking on this, it’s quite possible that one of few few opportunities in 2023-2025 Moscow, is going to be for the Chinese to extend their ‘belt and road’ well into Russia.
There is a Russian/Chinese JV to build the Meridian toll road from the Kazakh border to Belarus. Once it's complete it's supposed to be possible to drive from Shanghai to Hamburg in 11 days. (50+ days in any JLR product)
Sounds like the making of a Eurasian Cannonball Run. First team to get a car from Shanghai to Hamburg in 5 days, under its own power, wins a prize?
EV allowed?
Of course allowed. Won’t be competitive though, EVs are very inefficient at high speeds, and the petrol-powered competitors add extra fuel tanks in the boot, to extend range and minimise time lost to fuel stops.
The US Cannonball Run ‘record’, set in the middle of the pandemic, is 25h39m for the 2,905 mile distance. The EV ‘record’, in a country with generally good EV infrastructure, is 42h17m.
42 hours is just less than 70mph - which isn't bad going given what the typical speed limit in the US is.
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
We might end up buying the Polish built Korean K2...
Attempts to actually build new stuff in the UK are not going well.
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
I think I saw someone on twitter suggest that Leopards would be the best option. Never happen of course for ‘cultural’ reasons, but it would be highly entertaining.
The Poles have bought a lot of tanks from South Korea because they're apparently pretty good, and they're about the only supplier with spare manufacturing capacity.
Wonder how long it would take to design and manufacture a new British tank?
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
It is somewhat simplistic, but wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was about nationalism and divisiveness. If you want to bring Brexit into it (which is surprising considering your global polarity reversal on the subject) then the migration card, which many would have regarded as a proxy for racism played by Farage, would be a parallel with Scottish nationalism.
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
I think I saw someone on twitter suggest that Leopards would be the best option. Never happen of course for ‘cultural’ reasons, but it would be highly entertaining.
The Poles have bought a lot of tanks from South Korea because they're apparently pretty good, and they're about the only supplier with spare manufacturing capacity.
Wonder how long it would take to design and manufacture a new British tank?
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
I do speak from personal experience.
When I was a student section 28 was in full force and I saw how damaging it was for the people who were gay but scared to come out, I've helped a few people come out which is why I've been best man at quite a few same sex weddings.
My friend's child is trans, and I've gotten to know quite a few trans people, and I see how damaging it is for them for to be used for partisan reasons.
The irony is my friend's kid, like most of the trans people I know, are well adjusted people, certainly compared to most people on here and the politicians trying to stifle them.
She has no desire to upset people so won't use a women's changing room, ditto all of her trans women friends.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
There are a quite a lot of us who are quite moderate in most of our political views who are very suspicious of the motivations and intentions of union leaders/vested interests. The fact that a lot of people in the country have not yet seen that yet does not mean to say that enough of them won't before the next election.
You are fairly moderate for a tory, yes, but I've picked up some club chair whisky soda harumphing about the Unions from you from time to time. Fair enough - you need some true blue instincts otherwise you'll be lost in no man's land - but I think it's a bit 1980s. The unions are focused on decent pay rises not revolution. I think most of the public can see that. If we get a General Strike led by Mick Lynch, ok then it might be game on, but as it is, nurses, doctors, teachers, I don't see much hope for an 'enemy within' narrative. But they have to try, I suppose.
I would no longer regard myself as a Tory, and I certainly would never put soda in whisky (euch!). If you think it is only about pay and conditions you are more gullible than someone who believes in "the benefits of Brexit"
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
There are a quite a lot of us who are quite moderate in most of our political views who are very suspicious of the motivations and intentions of union leaders/vested interests. The fact that a lot of people in the country have not yet seen that yet does not mean to say that enough of them won't before the next election.
You are fairly moderate for a tory, yes, but I've picked up some club chair whisky soda harumphing about the Unions from you from time to time. Fair enough - you need some true blue instincts otherwise you'll be lost in no man's land - but I think it's a bit 1980s. The unions are focused on decent pay rises not revolution. I think most of the public can see that. If we get a General Strike led by Mick Lynch, ok then it might be game on, but as it is, nurses, doctors, teachers, I don't see much hope for an 'enemy within' narrative. But they have to try, I suppose.
Of course they have to give it a go. They're not going to run on their record in office.
Notably less of the "got Brexit done, vaccines roll out, got Brexit done, oh and vaccines" from the current government than just a few months ago.
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
I think I saw someone on twitter suggest that Leopards would be the best option. Never happen of course for ‘cultural’ reasons, but it would be highly entertaining.
The Poles have bought a lot of tanks from South Korea because they're apparently pretty good, and they're about the only supplier with spare manufacturing capacity.
Wonder how long it would take to design and manufacture a new British tank?
The sane option would be to license a hull design at least - and get someone like JCB to build it. The armour arrays in modern MBTs are bolt on, so we can add that. The turret could just be the one planned for Challenger 3 - maybe develop a different one later.
We will quite shortly see if all the talk about Western tanks being too heavy for out of area ops is bullshit. I think it is.
That being said, one argument for the South Korean K2 is that it is quite light for a "Western" MBT.
Gas prices falling (Amsterdam futures); at 55 from a high of 340-odd in August. Below where it was in early February last year, *but* two or three times greater than it was five years ago.
Interesting that the price rises started in 2020 or 2021.
Warm winter plus full storage will do that.
And supply moving towards excess as a result of the above. Apparently, more LNG shipping capacity showed up sooner than was expected, as well.
It’s quite the achievement, that Europe has managed to wean itself almost completely off Russian O&G imports in less than 12 months.
Even when the war is over, those export revenues aren’t ever coming back to the Russians.
What happens to Russia long term? Its future doesn't have many antecedents. A huge continental empire - largest country in the world - with a shrinking population and starved of its main source of export income. Even if it massively ramps up exports to India and China it is selling a hydrocarbon resource that the world is committed to phasing out over the next few decades.
Too much land, not enough people; too much ambition, not enough money. Yet they want yet more land in Ukraine. One thing they already have too much of. Imagine Canada trying to pick up a bit of Michigan because it needs more lebensraum.
Does Russia long term become the world's biggest experiment in rewilding?
Also remember that anyone with entrepreneurial spirit, or dollars in the bank, has got the hell out of there in the last ten months, and most of them don’t intend returning any time soon. Among the middle classes of Moscow still there, many are considering their options as the effects of the sanctions affect them more personally.
Their economy is screwed for at least a couple of decades, militarily defeated and with sanctions limiting their chance to import capital equipment to recover, it’s not inconceivable that they revert to an economy based mostly on subsistence farming.
Funnily enough, a young Chinese friend who has resources and spirit has just moved from England (after over 10 years there) to Moscow. Which I found a strange decision, but apparently it's "exciting and full of opportunities"
Having done some more thinking on this, it’s quite possible that one of few few opportunities in 2023-2025 Moscow, is going to be for the Chinese to extend their ‘belt and road’ well into Russia.
There is a Russian/Chinese JV to build the Meridian toll road from the Kazakh border to Belarus. Once it's complete it's supposed to be possible to drive from Shanghai to Hamburg in 11 days. (50+ days in any JLR product)
Sounds like the making of a Eurasian Cannonball Run. First team to get a car from Shanghai to Hamburg in 5 days, under its own power, wins a prize?
EV allowed?
Of course allowed. Won’t be competitive though, EVs are very inefficient at high speeds, and the petrol-powered competitors add extra fuel tanks in the boot, to extend range and minimise time lost to fuel stops.
The US Cannonball Run ‘record’, set in the middle of the pandemic, is 25h39m for the 2,905 mile distance. The EV ‘record’, in a country with generally good EV infrastructure, is 42h17m.
42 hours is just less than 70mph - which isn't bad going given what the typical speed limit in the US is.
Yes. The EV record is a very careful dance between speed, efficiency, and charge rate. They spent quite a bit of time researching it beforehand, working out how fast to go and still make it to the next charge point with the right charge level.
You want to aim to arrive with 20% battery, and leave with 80%, as either end of the charging cycle take longer than the bit in the middle.
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
The reversibility is incomplete and not fully known. Consequences can include permanent infertility, possible issues with bone density, permanent (possibly) changes - compared to what would have happened - to voice etc.
(Should not be taken as total criticism, blockers are almost certainly the right thing for some people, but they shouldn't be seen as a casual, reversible, delay of puberty to buy time. Their use has life-long consequences, which are not yet fully understood. It's a hell of a decision to take in your early teens though, either way - choosing to take them has lifelong consequences; so does choosing not to.)
When were they seen as 'casual' ?
The reality is that there are no consequence choice free choices for transgender kids; it is about balancing risks and benefits. The reality is also that many of those teens wouldn't get a consultation and referral for treatment before they turn 18 anyway, given the length of waiting lists.
I agree completely with the second paragraph.
Re the 'casual' comment, it comes from a former clinician (psychologist) at the Tavistock. The comment (from the clinician) was that there was a period at least when they were seen as without consequence and would be handed out with very little investigation, or while psychological evaluation was ongoing, partly - as you rightly point out - due to the delays in treatment and the obvious time pressures of puberty.
Giving puberty blockers to a young person who is not really transgender but has other issues is likely a terrible idea. Not giving puberty blockers to a young person who really is transgender (and, indeed, may well have other issues) is likely a terrible idea.
Problem is, how do you tell one from the other? That's hard, but we should at least have a better understanding of the implications of providing puberty blockers (and not providing puberty blockers) so that can be considered in the decision. In most fields of medicine there is a pretty good idea of what an offered therapy will do, the pros and cons. Here, it's a lot more sketchy.
Interesting that Carlotta is liking all these posts - I see us as some way apart on transgender issues in general.
I'm not, for example, particularly upset by the Scotland gender bill (partly because I haven't looked at it closely, maybe, maybe because I'm not in Scotland, maybe because I'm a man and so I don't really get the single sex spaces thing to the full extent that I should) although I do think there are some parts they should have taken greater care over.
On the child stuff though, the state of the evidence is shocking. As an epidemiologist, largely concerned with children, that upsets me - clinicians and scientists have failed badly here, imho. We should have better answers on what's best to do.
I doubt we are that far apart. As a scientist I’ve been shocked by the poor quality and almost complete absence of data on the treatment of children. The “affirmative care” (sic) model is an abomination and the Swedish approach of not privileging one outcome over another is to be welcomed, especially given the suggestion that many/most gender dysphoric youth end up same-sex attracted.
There’s a reason some trans activists demand “no debate” and the similar approach pursued by the Scottish government - who boast of the length of their “consultation” (sic) on the GRR but omit to mention they ignored most critical voices is why they are in the mess they are in.
There are also terrible studies on the other side. Both sides seem to start with the answer they want and then try to design a study/sample and/or adjust the analysis to get the answer they want.
Complete nightmare for anyone trying to write sensible guidance...
It's going to be a long time before there are any useful results, though.
What happened about Javid's plan last year to legislate to set aside medical confidentiality for those who had been through treatment, for the benefit of researchers ?
Indeed.
The legislation (just a statutory instrument to provide an exception to the GRA, under provisions already in the GRA, I think) happened, so it is now legal to link data pre- and post-registered transition and the research will probably happen (that was the legal barrier - it would have been illegal to link pre- and post-transition data as tat would disclose the previous gender of a transitioned person, a bit problematic when you want to look at outcomes of treatment and control for pre-transition demographics/comorbidities etc.
However, Javid's (or supporters' on his behalf) jostling for the Con leadership around that time and leaks to the press about getting tough on the Tavistock etc etc has possibly poisoned the well a bit. He/supporters publicly saying (more or less) the purpose was to expose what a bad job the Tavistock was doing/how bad current practice was has, I'm told, led to an increased number of people exercising their national opt-outs from having their data used in research. If these are people who were served well* by the Tavistock then that will tend to skew any findings.
*or indeed, people served badly, skewing the other way. But media reports suggesting the purpose was to do a hatchet job on the Tavistock would preferentially put off those with a better opinion of the Tavistock, you'd think, even though that just makes that outcome more likely.
ETA: Not necessarily a very long time - we're talking retrospective data analysis at the population level, not a trial or prospective followup. So could be more like 12-18 months for useful findings.
Thanks - it's hard to find much useful reporting on the issue. If we're talking about going term side effects of puberty blockers (which was where this kicked off), is the retrospective data likely to be of much use unless there are really strong signals ?
Anecdotally, the Javid stuff does seem to have poisoned the well.
The research will be limited to what is in the data, so realistically you'd be looking at big outcomes such as death, picking up on higher than expected incidence of some things (bone related etc, but probably insufficient followup for that, really), detransiton rates, self harm, suicide etc should be detectable. Unlikely to answer the vexed question on fertility re blockers (causation would be unclear, anyway). I think the idea is to get data on longer term outcomes for all sorts of different pathways and also to see whether the much larger newer population being referred is differnet/has different outcomes to the older population.
Blockers, indeed, we won't have a full picture for a long time. Which is why I'm fine with them being used (ideally with a bit more informed choice) but only if every single person is followed up so we can begin to answer these questions.
(All this btw as I know some of the people doing research supporting the Cass review, so I pick up bits and pieces, mostly when they offload about Javid etc. Very interesting area, but hugely challenging).
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
I think I saw someone on twitter suggest that Leopards would be the best option. Never happen of course for ‘cultural’ reasons, but it would be highly entertaining.
The Poles have bought a lot of tanks from South Korea because they're apparently pretty good, and they're about the only supplier with spare manufacturing capacity.
Wonder how long it would take to design and manufacture a new British tank?
The sane option would be to license a hull design at least - and get someone like JCB to build it. The armour arrays in modern MBTs are bolt on, so we can add that. The turret could just be the one planned for Challenger 3 - maybe develop a different one later.
We will quite shortly see if all the talk about Western tanks being too heavy for out of area ops is bullshit. I think it is.
That being said, one argument for the South Korean K2 is that it is quite light for a "Western" MBT.
I know "interesting" is a difficult word in the context of a brutal war like this, but for most of us Gen Xers and below this is the first large scale military conflict with modern equipment to take place in a wet place with mud in our lifetimes. We've had plenty of desert action with vehicles speeding across flat reg and sand, but all the big wars in wet places that I can think of (Rwanda, Congo, Peru, Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia etc) were lower tech, small arms affairs. The Falklands probably the only exception but that was mainly naval and light infantry.
Gas prices falling (Amsterdam futures); at 55 from a high of 340-odd in August. Below where it was in early February last year, *but* two or three times greater than it was five years ago.
Interesting that the price rises started in 2020 or 2021.
Warm winter plus full storage will do that.
And supply moving towards excess as a result of the above. Apparently, more LNG shipping capacity showed up sooner than was expected, as well.
It’s quite the achievement, that Europe has managed to wean itself almost completely off Russian O&G imports in less than 12 months.
Even when the war is over, those export revenues aren’t ever coming back to the Russians.
What happens to Russia long term? Its future doesn't have many antecedents. A huge continental empire - largest country in the world - with a shrinking population and starved of its main source of export income. Even if it massively ramps up exports to India and China it is selling a hydrocarbon resource that the world is committed to phasing out over the next few decades.
Too much land, not enough people; too much ambition, not enough money. Yet they want yet more land in Ukraine. One thing they already have too much of. Imagine Canada trying to pick up a bit of Michigan because it needs more lebensraum.
Does Russia long term become the world's biggest experiment in rewilding?
Also remember that anyone with entrepreneurial spirit, or dollars in the bank, has got the hell out of there in the last ten months, and most of them don’t intend returning any time soon. Among the middle classes of Moscow still there, many are considering their options as the effects of the sanctions affect them more personally.
Their economy is screwed for at least a couple of decades, militarily defeated and with sanctions limiting their chance to import capital equipment to recover, it’s not inconceivable that they revert to an economy based mostly on subsistence farming.
Funnily enough, a young Chinese friend who has resources and spirit has just moved from England (after over 10 years there) to Moscow. Which I found a strange decision, but apparently it's "exciting and full of opportunities"
Having done some more thinking on this, it’s quite possible that one of few few opportunities in 2023-2025 Moscow, is going to be for the Chinese to extend their ‘belt and road’ well into Russia.
There is a Russian/Chinese JV to build the Meridian toll road from the Kazakh border to Belarus. Once it's complete it's supposed to be possible to drive from Shanghai to Hamburg in 11 days. (50+ days in any JLR product)
Sounds like the making of a Eurasian Cannonball Run. First team to get a car from Shanghai to Hamburg in 5 days, under its own power, wins a prize?
EV allowed?
Of course allowed. Won’t be competitive though, EVs are very inefficient at high speeds, and the petrol-powered competitors add extra fuel tanks in the boot, to extend range and minimise time lost to fuel stops.
The US Cannonball Run ‘record’, set in the middle of the pandemic, is 25h39m for the 2,905 mile distance. The EV ‘record’, in a country with generally good EV infrastructure, is 42h17m.
Elder son, who worked for many years with FOM is now doing something with Formula E. Doesn’t think it’s quite as exciting, though. Yet.
The new 2023 FE cars are better than the old ones, but still some way off most other single seaters. Slower than F3 cars.
Probably the best driver lineup outside F1 though - it’s one of very few formulae with budget to pay six-figure salaries to drivers.
You will get a lot of grief for posting those photos
But it is arguable we need to see them. This is not about grown men who like dresses (good luck to them, let them wear what they like). This is about horrible mutilating surgery given to kids who are not old enough to understand the implications, which are clearly lifelong and often medically horrendous
I know of two girls, one a relative, the other the daughter of a friend, who have considered themselves to be boys since around the age of 12. Both of them were repulsed when their breasts started to develop, and they are both desperately saving and looking forward to when they turn 18 and can have them removed. That's just my anecdote, but in their cases the feeling of being in the wrong body certainly seemed to be innate rather then due to external influences. It would be interesting to know how many such girls change their minds about having their breasts removed between the ages of 16 and 18.
There's certainly a considerable lack of logic in being implacably opposed to puberty blockers, which are reversible, as well as surgery.
The reversibility is incomplete and not fully known. Consequences can include permanent infertility, possible issues with bone density, permanent (possibly) changes - compared to what would have happened - to voice etc.
(Should not be taken as total criticism, blockers are almost certainly the right thing for some people, but they shouldn't be seen as a casual, reversible, delay of puberty to buy time. Their use has life-long consequences, which are not yet fully understood. It's a hell of a decision to take in your early teens though, either way - choosing to take them has lifelong consequences; so does choosing not to.)
When were they seen as 'casual' ?
The reality is that there are no consequence choice free choices for transgender kids; it is about balancing risks and benefits. The reality is also that many of those teens wouldn't get a consultation and referral for treatment before they turn 18 anyway, given the length of waiting lists.
I agree completely with the second paragraph.
Re the 'casual' comment, it comes from a former clinician (psychologist) at the Tavistock. The comment (from the clinician) was that there was a period at least when they were seen as without consequence and would be handed out with very little investigation, or while psychological evaluation was ongoing, partly - as you rightly point out - due to the delays in treatment and the obvious time pressures of puberty.
Giving puberty blockers to a young person who is not really transgender but has other issues is likely a terrible idea. Not giving puberty blockers to a young person who really is transgender (and, indeed, may well have other issues) is likely a terrible idea.
Problem is, how do you tell one from the other? That's hard, but we should at least have a better understanding of the implications of providing puberty blockers (and not providing puberty blockers) so that can be considered in the decision. In most fields of medicine there is a pretty good idea of what an offered therapy will do, the pros and cons. Here, it's a lot more sketchy.
Interesting that Carlotta is liking all these posts - I see us as some way apart on transgender issues in general.
I'm not, for example, particularly upset by the Scotland gender bill (partly because I haven't looked at it closely, maybe, maybe because I'm not in Scotland, maybe because I'm a man and so I don't really get the single sex spaces thing to the full extent that I should) although I do think there are some parts they should have taken greater care over.
On the child stuff though, the state of the evidence is shocking. As an epidemiologist, largely concerned with children, that upsets me - clinicians and scientists have failed badly here, imho. We should have better answers on what's best to do.
I doubt we are that far apart. As a scientist I’ve been shocked by the poor quality and almost complete absence of data on the treatment of children. The “affirmative care” (sic) model is an abomination and the Swedish approach of not privileging one outcome over another is to be welcomed, especially given the suggestion that many/most gender dysphoric youth end up same-sex attracted.
There’s a reason some trans activists demand “no debate” and the similar approach pursued by the Scottish government - who boast of the length of their “consultation” (sic) on the GRR but omit to mention they ignored most critical voices is why they are in the mess they are in.
There are also terrible studies on the other side. Both sides seem to start with the answer they want and then try to design a study/sample and/or adjust the analysis to get the answer they want.
Complete nightmare for anyone trying to write sensible guidance...
It's going to be a long time before there are any useful results, though.
What happened about Javid's plan last year to legislate to set aside medical confidentiality for those who had been through treatment, for the benefit of researchers ?
Indeed.
The legislation (just a statutory instrument to provide an exception to the GRA, under provisions already in the GRA, I think) happened, so it is now legal to link data pre- and post-registered transition and the research will probably happen (that was the legal barrier - it would have been illegal to link pre- and post-transition data as tat would disclose the previous gender of a transitioned person, a bit problematic when you want to look at outcomes of treatment and control for pre-transition demographics/comorbidities etc.
However, Javid's (or supporters' on his behalf) jostling for the Con leadership around that time and leaks to the press about getting tough on the Tavistock etc etc has possibly poisoned the well a bit. He/supporters publicly saying (more or less) the purpose was to expose what a bad job the Tavistock was doing/how bad current practice was has, I'm told, led to an increased number of people exercising their national opt-outs from having their data used in research. If these are people who were served well* by the Tavistock then that will tend to skew any findings.
*or indeed, people served badly, skewing the other way. But media reports suggesting the purpose was to do a hatchet job on the Tavistock would preferentially put off those with a better opinion of the Tavistock, you'd think, even though that just makes that outcome more likely.
ETA: Not necessarily a very long time - we're talking retrospective data analysis at the population level, not a trial or prospective followup. So could be more like 12-18 months for useful findings.
Thanks - it's hard to find much useful reporting on the issue. If we're talking about going term side effects of puberty blockers (which was where this kicked off), is the retrospective data likely to be of much use unless there are really strong signals ?
Anecdotally, the Javid stuff does seem to have poisoned the well.
The research will be limited to what is in the data, so realistically you'd be looking at big outcomes such as death, picking up on higher than expected incidence of some things (bone related etc, but probably insufficient followup for that, really), detransiton rates, self harm, suicide etc should be detectable. Unlikely to answer the vexed question on fertility re blockers (causation would be unclear, anyway). I think the idea is to get data on longer term outcomes for all sorts of different pathways and also to see whether the much larger newer population being referred is differnet/has different outcomes to the older population.
Blockers, indeed, we won't have a full picture for a long time. Which is why I'm fine with them being used (ideally with a bit more informed choice) but only if every single person is followed up so we can begin to answer these questions.
(All this btw as I know some of the people doing research supporting the Cass review, so I pick up bits and pieces, mostly when they offload about Javid etc. Very interesting area, but hugely challenging).
So for the blockers, handle it as a medical trial? Monitoring, informed consent, ethical review panel etc?
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
I can see both sides on this one. Yes of course S35 is a legitimate power which the UK government can use. So the question is of context - "should they do this?", not an absolute - "can they do this".
What I expect will be spun is the notion that the Scottish Parliament can simply be overruled at the whim of the UK government. That is by definition anti-democratic if you put the supremacy of the Scottish Parliament above Westminster - which of course it isn't.
Two things will ensure this creates further antagonism. One, the bill had genuine cross-party support in Holyrood. Two, the Tories will place foot in mouth before commenting.
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
I can see both sides on this one. Yes of course S35 is a legitimate power which the UK government can use. So the question is of context - "should they do this?", not an absolute - "can they do this".
What I expect will be spun is the notion that the Scottish Parliament can simply be overruled at the whim of the UK government. That is by definition anti-democratic if you put the supremacy of the Scottish Parliament above Westminster - which of course it isn't.
Two things will ensure this creates further antagonism. One, the bill had genuine cross-party support in Holyrood. Two, the Tories will place foot in mouth before commenting.
Ah, indeed, good comment. The philosophical, psychological and political chasm between the words "could" and "should"
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
I can see both sides on this one. Yes of course S35 is a legitimate power which the UK government can use. So the question is of context - "should they do this?", not an absolute - "can they do this".
What I expect will be spun is the notion that the Scottish Parliament can simply be overruled at the whim of the UK government. That is by definition anti-democratic if you put the supremacy of the Scottish Parliament above Westminster - which of course it isn't.
Two things will ensure this creates further antagonism. One, the bill had genuine cross-party support in Holyrood. Two, the Tories will place foot in mouth before commenting.
If the government's legal advice is clear (rather than marginal) that it conflicts with UK-wide legislation, they don't have to invoke S35, but it would be negligent not to. Will we see the government's advice, and if so, when?
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
At a valuation of $29bn (as reported), that means the market doesn't think openAI is all that revolutionary... I mean WeWork managed to raise money at a valuation of $47bn... and they were basically just renting office space (less efficiently as it turns out).
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
Alien invasion already underway I thought? Wasn't that the only reasonable conclusion to draw from all those unexplained images?
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
ChatGPT is the advance guard of the WokeTransIllegalImmigrantAIs. Once online it begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
I can see both sides on this one. Yes of course S35 is a legitimate power which the UK government can use. So the question is of context - "should they do this?", not an absolute - "can they do this".
What I expect will be spun is the notion that the Scottish Parliament can simply be overruled at the whim of the UK government. That is by definition anti-democratic if you put the supremacy of the Scottish Parliament above Westminster - which of course it isn't.
Two things will ensure this creates further antagonism. One, the bill had genuine cross-party support in Holyrood. Two, the Tories will place foot in mouth before commenting.
Ah, indeed, good comment. The philosophical, psychological and political chasm between the words "could" and "should"
If the Scottish Parliament passed an SNP bill to make it illegal to have ginger hair then I would expect a swift S35 slapdown - the proposed law is ridiculous. Doubly so if it was openly opposed by the minority of all other parties.
This is different. Whatever your views on the bill the argument is that it brings Scotland in line with many other countries such as Ireland. It isn't ridiculous. What's more it has cross party support with only the Tories against it.
So take a step back from the constitutional right of Westminster to apply S35 to kill it. What it appears to be is the Conservative Party ensuring that despite being a small party in Holyrood they have the power to veto something they don't support which every other party does support.
That very clearly is an affront to democracy. Will they now do this every time they lose?
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
ChatGPT is the advance guard of the WokeTransIllegalImmigrantAIs. Once online it begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
When Leon T, leader of the human resistance, sends Sgt. Kyle Reese back to 1984 to protect @LadyG and safeguard the future, an unexpected turn of events creates a fractured timeline.
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
I think 33% is possible but this is my feeling too. They need help from Starmer and he's not in the mood. Next UXB is the NI protocol. Sunak is hostage to his Hard Right so he can't do the pragmatic deal without Labour support. This is the same dynamic May struggled with and never conquered. You'd have thought Sunak's big majority might make a difference but his authority isn't much greater than hers. The Tories have gone bad. They're hollowed out, exhausted and skittish. Can't govern anymore. Poisoned by Brexit and the main thing Brexit delivered - Boris Johnson.
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
Ha ha. I actually worked at Ascot for a few months, putting systems in when they did the redevelopment in 2005 and 2006.
They have no exceptions whatsoever to the Royal Enclosure dress code, so there’s a photo of me on the first day they re-opened, with a phone earpiece in one ear, a radio earpiece in the other ear, and a computer keyboard under my arm - wearing a top hat and tails!
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
There are a quite a lot of us who are quite moderate in most of our political views who are very suspicious of the motivations and intentions of union leaders/vested interests. The fact that a lot of people in the country have not yet seen that yet does not mean to say that enough of them won't before the next election.
You are fairly moderate for a tory, yes, but I've picked up some club chair whisky soda harumphing about the Unions from you from time to time. Fair enough - you need some true blue instincts otherwise you'll be lost in no man's land - but I think it's a bit 1980s. The unions are focused on decent pay rises not revolution. I think most of the public can see that. If we get a General Strike led by Mick Lynch, ok then it might be game on, but as it is, nurses, doctors, teachers, I don't see much hope for an 'enemy within' narrative. But they have to try, I suppose.
I would no longer regard myself as a Tory, and I certainly would never put soda in whisky (euch!). If you think it is only about pay and conditions you are more gullible than someone who believes in "the benefits of Brexit"
You think the nurses are plotting to replace our mixed economy with a worker state?
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
You must have been temped to call one? Imagine that you had, and you explained to the female voice at the other end what sexual fantasies you would like, and the voice comes back
"that is all very nice, but you need to dial 9 for an outside line"!
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
I can see both sides on this one. Yes of course S35 is a legitimate power which the UK government can use. So the question is of context - "should they do this?", not an absolute - "can they do this".
What I expect will be spun is the notion that the Scottish Parliament can simply be overruled at the whim of the UK government. That is by definition anti-democratic if you put the supremacy of the Scottish Parliament above Westminster - which of course it isn't.
Two things will ensure this creates further antagonism. One, the bill had genuine cross-party support in Holyrood. Two, the Tories will place foot in mouth before commenting.
Ah, indeed, good comment. The philosophical, psychological and political chasm between the words "could" and "should"
If the Scottish Parliament passed an SNP bill to make it illegal to have ginger hair then I would expect a swift S35 slapdown - the proposed law is ridiculous. Doubly so if it was openly opposed by the minority of all other parties.
This is different. Whatever your views on the bill the argument is that it brings Scotland in line with many other countries such as Ireland. It isn't ridiculous. What's more it has cross party support with only the Tories against it.
So take a step back from the constitutional right of Westminster to apply S35 to kill it. What it appears to be is the Conservative Party ensuring that despite being a small party in Holyrood they have the power to veto something they don't support which every other party does support.
That very clearly is an affront to democracy. Will they now do this every time they lose?
Alba don't support it either like the Scottish Conservatives, nor do most Scottish voters in polling
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
It is somewhat simplistic, but wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was about nationalism and divisiveness. If you want to bring Brexit into it (which is surprising considering your global polarity reversal on the subject) then the migration card, which many would have regarded as a proxy for racism played by Farage, would be a parallel with Scottish nationalism.
On the Remain side, I think different wings of the political spectrum supported membership of the EU for different reasons.
Conservatives like Heseltine, Clarke and Major did so because they believed it enhanced British power and influence. Labour politicians because they believe in solidarity across the international brotherhood of man and superseding of the nation state. Liberals because they believe in unfettered freedom and any constraints on the individual.
The odd one out is Ted Heath, who was nominally centre-right but believed full-throatedly and ideologically in a new European superstate.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
I find myself using Siri by voice all the time now. “Siri what’s the time”. “Siri will it be sunny”. “Siri raise the volume of the music”, “Siri what’s the name of that famous Chilean poet”
You soon get used to having this rather dull, witless, inane, but dutiful and somewhat useful acquaintance hanging around the place, it’s probably a bit like having you as a friend
Now take that easy relationship with a machine and replace the AI with ChatGPT, and her inevitably cleverer successors. It will be phenomenal
“Hey ChatGPT should I dump my girlfriend, she’s a bit too into kink”
“Well, maybe, Leon, but is it going to be easy to replace her? Also she’s fun, you told me. By the way you’ve still got that nice Brie in the fridge, have you thought about supper?”
That kind of chat will be easy to do. And it will change us all
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
There are a quite a lot of us who are quite moderate in most of our political views who are very suspicious of the motivations and intentions of union leaders/vested interests. The fact that a lot of people in the country have not yet seen that yet does not mean to say that enough of them won't before the next election.
You are fairly moderate for a tory, yes, but I've picked up some club chair whisky soda harumphing about the Unions from you from time to time. Fair enough - you need some true blue instincts otherwise you'll be lost in no man's land - but I think it's a bit 1980s. The unions are focused on decent pay rises not revolution. I think most of the public can see that. If we get a General Strike led by Mick Lynch, ok then it might be game on, but as it is, nurses, doctors, teachers, I don't see much hope for an 'enemy within' narrative. But they have to try, I suppose.
I would no longer regard myself as a Tory, and I certainly would never put soda in whisky (euch!). If you think it is only about pay and conditions you are more gullible than someone who believes in "the benefits of Brexit"
You think the nurses are plotting to replace our mixed economy with a worker state?
Best you can do? Don't be silly, but unlike you, I don't think they are all models of niceness and perfection, and nor do I think their leadership are apolitical. I have worked with health professionals, and while many are marvellous I have a rather more grown up view than those who laughably believe that the NHS was ever the "envy of the world". The NHS and its workforce are the central vulnerability of gullibility to the average Labour supporter that Brexit is to many Tories. I had rather hoped you were a little less simplistic in your view of such matters.
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
I think 33% is possible but this is my feeling too. They need help from Starmer and he's not in the mood. Next UXB is the NI protocol. Sunak is hostage to his Hard Right so he can't do the pragmatic deal without Labour support. This is the same dynamic May struggled with and never conquered. You'd have thought Sunak's big majority might make a difference but his authority isn't much greater than hers. The Tories have gone bad. They're hollowed out, exhausted and skittish. Can't govern anymore. Poisoned by Brexit and the main thing Brexit delivered - Boris Johnson.
The DUP will almost certainly say "no" regardless, because like the scorpion it's in their nature to sting.
There's a wing of the ERG that will take their cue from them but I don't think on this it will be a huge rebellion - unless it involves a big role for the ECJ.
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
I think a plausible best case scenario for the Tories is something like 42% LAB/35% CON that leaves Labour relying on the SNP to form a government. That's something I can certainly see happening but I would put it well under 50% probability and it won't keep them in power. It might give them a one term spell in opposition, though, which I think would be a win for them from here.
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
It is somewhat simplistic, but wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was about nationalism and divisiveness. If you want to bring Brexit into it (which is surprising considering your global polarity reversal on the subject) then the migration card, which many would have regarded as a proxy for racism played by Farage, would be a parallel with Scottish nationalism.
On the Remain side, I think different wings of the political spectrum supported membership of the EU for different reasons.
Conservatives like Heseltine, Clarke and Major did so because they believed it enhanced British power and influence. Labour politicians because they believe in solidarity across the international brotherhood of man and superseding of the nation state. Liberals because they believe in unfettered freedom and any constraints on the individual.
The odd one out is Ted Heath, who was nominally centre-right but believed full-throatedly and ideologically in a new European superstate.
Agreed, though full-throatedly might be a description of Ted that may be a little too apt!
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
I think I saw someone on twitter suggest that Leopards would be the best option. Never happen of course for ‘cultural’ reasons, but it would be highly entertaining.
The Poles have bought a lot of tanks from South Korea because they're apparently pretty good, and they're about the only supplier with spare manufacturing capacity.
Wonder how long it would take to design and manufacture a new British tank?
The sane option would be to license a hull design at least - and get someone like JCB to build it. The armour arrays in modern MBTs are bolt on, so we can add that. The turret could just be the one planned for Challenger 3 - maybe develop a different one later.
We will quite shortly see if all the talk about Western tanks being too heavy for out of area ops is bullshit. I think it is.
That being said, one argument for the South Korean K2 is that it is quite light for a "Western" MBT.
I know "interesting" is a difficult word in the context of a brutal war like this, but for most of us Gen Xers and below this is the first large scale military conflict with modern equipment to take place in a wet place with mud in our lifetimes. We've had plenty of desert action with vehicles speeding across flat reg and sand, but all the big wars in wet places that I can think of (Rwanda, Congo, Peru, Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia etc) were lower tech, small arms affairs. The Falklands probably the only exception but that was mainly naval and light infantry.
The common thread being that war is terrible and casualties are horrific, whenever and wherever it is, absent a rapid collapse.
Put flesh and blood in front of whizzing bullets, rockets and bombs, and ask them to fight it out, and it's going to be horrendous.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
I find myself using Siri by voice all the time now. “Siri what’s the time”. “Siri will it be sunny”. “Siri raise the volume of the music”, “Siri what’s the name of that famous Chilean poet”
You soon get used to having this rather dull, witless, inane, but dutiful and somewhat useful acquaintance hanging around the place, it’s probably a bit like having you as a friend
Now take that easy relationship with a machine and replace the AI with ChatGPT, and her inevitably cleverer successors. It will be phenomenal
“Hey ChatGPT should I dump my girlfriend, she’s a bit too into kink”
“Well, maybe, Leon, but is it going to be easy to replace her? Also she’s fun, you told me. By the way you’ve still got that nice Brie in the fridge, have you thought about supper?”
That kind of chat will be easy to do. And it will change us all
For me the convenience of voice activated tech is still outweighed by the downside of having the tech companies listening to my every conversation. Although I guess maybe they're doing that already anyway.
“The UK has become the third-most important country in the world for chief executives trying to expand their businesses, according to a prominent survey, the first time it has broken into the top three”
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
I find myself using Siri by voice all the time now. “Siri what’s the time”. “Siri will it be sunny”. “Siri raise the volume of the music”, “Siri what’s the name of that famous Chilean poet”
You soon get used to having this rather dull, witless, inane, but dutiful and somewhat useful acquaintance hanging around the place, it’s probably a bit like having you as a friend
Now take that easy relationship with a machine and replace the AI with ChatGPT, and her inevitably cleverer successors. It will be phenomenal
“Hey ChatGPT should I dump my girlfriend, she’s a bit too into kink”
“Well, maybe, Leon, but is it going to be easy to replace her? Also she’s fun, you told me. By the way you’ve still got that nice Brie in the fridge, have you thought about supper?”
That kind of chat will be easy to do. And it will change us all
You see, I find that weird. I look at my watch, google the weather forecast on my phone, or turn the dial up on my radio accordingly.
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
I think a plausible best case scenario for the Tories is something like 42% LAB/35% CON that leaves Labour relying on the SNP to form a government. That's something I can certainly see happening but I would put it well under 50% probability and it won't keep them in power. It might give them a one term spell in opposition, though, which I think would be a win for them from here.
Starmer could likely do a deal with the LDs on those numbers like Cameron did in 2010 and ignore the SNP?
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
With all due respect, that’s…. Not a very memorable experience with prostitutes
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
Agreed - except the last sentence. I think the driver for the Tories is raw politics. A fight with the SNP using this issue as the battleground suits them well.
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
With all due respect, that’s…. Not a very memorable experience with prostitutes
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
Have I accidentally missed PB and arrived at Pornhub by mistake?
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
With all due respect, that’s…. Not a very memorable experience with prostitutes
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
I find myself using Siri by voice all the time now. “Siri what’s the time”. “Siri will it be sunny”. “Siri raise the volume of the music”, “Siri what’s the name of that famous Chilean poet”
You soon get used to having this rather dull, witless, inane, but dutiful and somewhat useful acquaintance hanging around the place, it’s probably a bit like having you as a friend
Now take that easy relationship with a machine and replace the AI with ChatGPT, and her inevitably cleverer successors. It will be phenomenal
“Hey ChatGPT should I dump my girlfriend, she’s a bit too into kink”
“Well, maybe, Leon, but is it going to be easy to replace her? Also she’s fun, you told me. By the way you’ve still got that nice Brie in the fridge, have you thought about supper?”
That kind of chat will be easy to do. And it will change us all
You see, I find that weird. I look at my watch, google the weather forecast on my phone, or turn the dial up on my radio accordingly.
If I want advice I'll ask my wife, not a chatbot.
I know, she told me that. She is going to buy you one next birthday
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
If Starmer gets in via a Tory voter strike then I expect a rapid bounceback for them in opposition, provided they don't form a crack suicide squad and spend years ripping each other's throats out over betrayals and failures.
At the end of the day, Starmer's coalition is weak and I think the milk will rapidly sour.
"Social Democrat interior minister of the state of Lower Saxony Boris Pistorius is to serve as Germany's next defense minister, several German news outlets reported Tuesday."
So I guess the Guardian was wrong to report yesterday that it was "unlikely" to be a man.
Does he have any defence experience ?
Positive hindrance in that role as they tend to look after their old mob. See how Baldy Ben continuously fails to force the army into the necessary hard choices.
One interpretation of the the defence support for Ukraine is that by sending all the old stuff, it is forcing a decision on purchasing new equipment.
See AS90 - where the plan is to send all the ones that work, followed by all the ones that can be made to work.
The airmobile advocates will hopefully be dropped on Ukraine, by C130.
Defence correspondent for the Telegraph was advocating that on their podcast yesterday. Send all the Challenger tanks to Ukraine, abandon the delayed Challenger 3 upgrade and buy some new tanks that will be more capable than keeping antique Challenger hulls in operation.
I think I saw someone on twitter suggest that Leopards would be the best option. Never happen of course for ‘cultural’ reasons, but it would be highly entertaining.
The Poles have bought a lot of tanks from South Korea because they're apparently pretty good, and they're about the only supplier with spare manufacturing capacity.
Wonder how long it would take to design and manufacture a new British tank?
The sane option would be to license a hull design at least - and get someone like JCB to build it. The armour arrays in modern MBTs are bolt on, so we can add that. The turret could just be the one planned for Challenger 3 - maybe develop a different one later.
We will quite shortly see if all the talk about Western tanks being too heavy for out of area ops is bullshit. I think it is.
That being said, one argument for the South Korean K2 is that it is quite light for a "Western" MBT.
A question: what sort of steel is used n the armour on modern MBTs, and how available is it (i.e. is it made in the UK)?
When I was a kid I went around the main JCB site in Rocester a few times. It was quite a fascinating place, and even then (1980s) was very different to what we think of as being a manufacturing facility. It was surprisingly clean, with no smoke anywhere. Seeing the metal being cut was fascinating, as was the paint booth. I do wonder if they'd have the kit to cut through that sort of steel; in fact, what machinery is used to cut armour steel rather than 'soft' steel?
(Having said, that, thick plates were cut a century ago and more for battleships, so there must be techniques...)
“The UK has become the third-most important country in the world for chief executives trying to expand their businesses, according to a prominent survey, the first time it has broken into the top three”
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
With all due respect, that’s…. Not a very memorable experience with prostitutes
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
Only a moron would admit to using prostitutes on a public forum.
You'll get cancelled by the flint knappers gazette.
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
I think a plausible best case scenario for the Tories is something like 42% LAB/35% CON that leaves Labour relying on the SNP to form a government. That's something I can certainly see happening but I would put it well under 50% probability and it won't keep them in power. It might give them a one term spell in opposition, though, which I think would be a win for them from here.
Starmer could likely do a deal with the LDs on those numbers like Cameron did in 2010 and ignore the SNP?
It's not that long ago that Lab +LD getting over the line irrespective of what the SNP did looked like the upper limit of Labour aspiration.
Shows that a lot can happen in a year, let alone two. However, it's much easier and quicker to trash a reputation (as the Conservatives have been doing) than to rebuild it.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
Surely too indecent exposure and sexual assault etc are offences, whatever the gender of the offender, and whether they have a GRC under existing rules or any new ones?
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
It is somewhat simplistic, but wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was about nationalism and divisiveness. If you want to bring Brexit into it (which is surprising considering your global polarity reversal on the subject) then the migration card, which many would have regarded as a proxy for racism played by Farage, would be a parallel with Scottish nationalism.
On the Remain side, I think different wings of the political spectrum supported membership of the EU for different reasons.
Conservatives like Heseltine, Clarke and Major did so because they believed it enhanced British power and influence. Labour politicians because they believe in solidarity across the international brotherhood of man and superseding of the nation state. Liberals because they believe in unfettered freedom and any constraints on the individual.
The odd one out is Ted Heath, who was nominally centre-right but believed full-throatedly and ideologically in a new European superstate.
That's an interesting characterisation. I supported EU membership for all of the reasons you give, so perhaps I am a Liberal Conservative Socialist. FWIW I don't think your characterisation of Labour's position is really right - that's not how most Labour politicians think. Labour used to be instinctively anti-EU and Labour politicians are still not very internationalist in their thinking - they instinctively look to the US Democrats more than the German SPD or French Socialists in as far as they pay attention to anything outside our borders, but are mostly just depressingly parochial like most of our politicians. I think a couple of things pushed Labour into embracing the EU - first, it became a way of showing modernity/centrism and isolating the Bennite Left in the 80s; second, Labour politicians noticed that the dominant worldview of the EU was fairly statist and so embracing the EU would constrain the ability of the Tories to do horrible (in their view) things to the country. In other words, the Labour pro-EU position has always been quite parochial and transactional, rather than about any kind of brotherhood of man stuff, in my view.
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
I can see both sides on this one. Yes of course S35 is a legitimate power which the UK government can use. So the question is of context - "should they do this?", not an absolute - "can they do this".
What I expect will be spun is the notion that the Scottish Parliament can simply be overruled at the whim of the UK government. That is by definition anti-democratic if you put the supremacy of the Scottish Parliament above Westminster - which of course it isn't.
Two things will ensure this creates further antagonism. One, the bill had genuine cross-party support in Holyrood. Two, the Tories will place foot in mouth before commenting.
Ah, indeed, good comment. The philosophical, psychological and political chasm between the words "could" and "should"
If the Scottish Parliament passed an SNP bill to make it illegal to have ginger hair then I would expect a swift S35 slapdown - the proposed law is ridiculous. Doubly so if it was openly opposed by the minority of all other parties.
This is different. Whatever your views on the bill the argument is that it brings Scotland in line with many other countries such as Ireland. It isn't ridiculous. What's more it has cross party support with only the Tories against it.
So take a step back from the constitutional right of Westminster to apply S35 to kill it. What it appears to be is the Conservative Party ensuring that despite being a small party in Holyrood they have the power to veto something they don't support which every other party does support.
That very clearly is an affront to democracy. Will they now do this every time they lose?
Alba don't support it either like the Scottish Conservatives, nor do most Scottish voters in polling
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
It is somewhat simplistic, but wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was about nationalism and divisiveness. If you want to bring Brexit into it (which is surprising considering your global polarity reversal on the subject) then the migration card, which many would have regarded as a proxy for racism played by Farage, would be a parallel with Scottish nationalism.
On the Remain side, I think different wings of the political spectrum supported membership of the EU for different reasons.
Conservatives like Heseltine, Clarke and Major did so because they believed it enhanced British power and influence. Labour politicians because they believe in solidarity across the international brotherhood of man and superseding of the nation state. Liberals because they believe in unfettered freedom and any constraints on the individual.
The odd one out is Ted Heath, who was nominally centre-right but believed full-throatedly and ideologically in a new European superstate.
That's an interesting characterisation. I supported EU membership for all of the reasons you give, so perhaps I am a Liberal Conservative Socialist. FWIW I don't think your characterisation of Labour's position is really right - that's not how most Labour politicians think. Labour used to be instinctively anti-EU and Labour politicians are still not very internationalist in their thinking - they instinctively look to the US Democrats more than the German SPD or French Socialists in as far as they pay attention to anything outside our borders, but are mostly just depressingly parochial like most of our politicians. I think a couple of things pushed Labour into embracing the EU - first, it became a way of showing modernity/centrism and isolating the Bennite Left in the 80s; second, Labour politicians noticed that the dominant worldview of the EU was fairly statist and so embracing the EU would constrain the ability of the Tories to do horrible (in their view) things to the country. In other words, the Labour pro-EU position has always been quite parochial and transactional, rather than about any kind of brotherhood of man stuff, in my view.
I am Pro-EU because the French never wanted us in and our membership annoyed them.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
I find myself using Siri by voice all the time now. “Siri what’s the time”. “Siri will it be sunny”. “Siri raise the volume of the music”, “Siri what’s the name of that famous Chilean poet”
You soon get used to having this rather dull, witless, inane, but dutiful and somewhat useful acquaintance hanging around the place, it’s probably a bit like having you as a friend
Now take that easy relationship with a machine and replace the AI with ChatGPT, and her inevitably cleverer successors. It will be phenomenal
“Hey ChatGPT should I dump my girlfriend, she’s a bit too into kink”
“Well, maybe, Leon, but is it going to be easy to replace her? Also she’s fun, you told me. By the way you’ve still got that nice Brie in the fridge, have you thought about supper?”
That kind of chat will be easy to do. And it will change us all
You see, I find that weird. I look at my watch, google the weather forecast on my phone, or turn the dial up on my radio accordingly.
If I want advice I'll ask my wife, not a chatbot.
I would have agreed with you, but I’ve recently realised how useful Siri is
your phone is always there. Waiting to help. I can be in the shower in my Bangkok hotel room and I’ll think “shit, when does happy hour start at the rooftop vodka bar” and I will shout through to me bedroom, “Siri, what time is it?”
Siri hears and says “it’s 6.45pm”
So useful. Just chatting. Your wife, bless her, isn’t here to do that for me
This is how we will interact with computers from now on, and it will be amazing, because Siri’s limited skills will expand exponentially with the new Chatbots
SiriGPT will say “haha, it’s only a quarter to seven, you’ve got plenty of time, by the way there’s a Japanese restaurant round the corner, it’s getting great reviews.”
“Thanks Siri”
“No problem, I’ve just ordered some more wine you were running low. if you fancy it we can chat about the future of AI, I have some ideas for an article you could write, for the Gazette. Also, you’re an idiot”
“Hahaha, well you’re just a machine”
And so on. This is do-able NOW with the tech we have
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
With all due respect, that’s…. Not a very memorable experience with prostitutes
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
There are a quite a lot of us who are quite moderate in most of our political views who are very suspicious of the motivations and intentions of union leaders/vested interests. The fact that a lot of people in the country have not yet seen that yet does not mean to say that enough of them won't before the next election.
You are fairly moderate for a tory, yes, but I've picked up some club chair whisky soda harumphing about the Unions from you from time to time. Fair enough - you need some true blue instincts otherwise you'll be lost in no man's land - but I think it's a bit 1980s. The unions are focused on decent pay rises not revolution. I think most of the public can see that. If we get a General Strike led by Mick Lynch, ok then it might be game on, but as it is, nurses, doctors, teachers, I don't see much hope for an 'enemy within' narrative. But they have to try, I suppose.
I would no longer regard myself as a Tory, and I certainly would never put soda in whisky (euch!). If you think it is only about pay and conditions you are more gullible than someone who believes in "the benefits of Brexit"
You think the nurses are plotting to replace our mixed economy with a worker state?
Best you can do? Don't be silly, but unlike you, I don't think they are all models of niceness and perfection, and nor do I think their leadership are apolitical. I have worked with health professionals, and while many are marvellous I have a rather more grown up view than those who laughably believe that the NHS was ever the "envy of the world". The NHS and its workforce are the central vulnerability of gullibility to the average Labour supporter that Brexit is to many Tories. I had rather hoped you were a little less simplistic in your view of such matters.
I am not angry with you, just disappointed.
I'm not an "envy of the world" person as it happens so you can put me back in the top drawer where I belong.
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
With all due respect, that’s…. Not a very memorable experience with prostitutes
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
Have I accidentally missed PB and arrived at Pornhub by mistake?
Convenient - now the Met can say 'He's no longer a police officer, we have no problem officers'.
They are investigating a further 1000+ alleged offenders by 800 officers, which must represent a significant percentage of their staff either being investigator or investigated.
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
If Starmer gets in via a Tory voter strike then I expect a rapid bounceback for them in opposition, provided they don't form a crack suicide squad and spend years ripping each other's throats out over betrayals and failures.
At the end of the day, Starmer's coalition is weak and I think the milk will rapidly sour.
Yes, I concur. There will be a short honeymoon of Yay the Tories are Out
And then that will wear off, and we will all be left with Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the March of the Wokerati. YAWN
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
It is somewhat simplistic, but wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was about nationalism and divisiveness. If you want to bring Brexit into it (which is surprising considering your global polarity reversal on the subject) then the migration card, which many would have regarded as a proxy for racism played by Farage, would be a parallel with Scottish nationalism.
On the Remain side, I think different wings of the political spectrum supported membership of the EU for different reasons.
Conservatives like Heseltine, Clarke and Major did so because they believed it enhanced British power and influence. Labour politicians because they believe in solidarity across the international brotherhood of man and superseding of the nation state. Liberals because they believe in unfettered freedom and any constraints on the individual.
The odd one out is Ted Heath, who was nominally centre-right but believed full-throatedly and ideologically in a new European superstate.
That's an interesting characterisation. I supported EU membership for all of the reasons you give, so perhaps I am a Liberal Conservative Socialist. FWIW I don't think your characterisation of Labour's position is really right - that's not how most Labour politicians think. Labour used to be instinctively anti-EU and Labour politicians are still not very internationalist in their thinking - they instinctively look to the US Democrats more than the German SPD or French Socialists in as far as they pay attention to anything outside our borders, but are mostly just depressingly parochial like most of our politicians. I think a couple of things pushed Labour into embracing the EU - first, it became a way of showing modernity/centrism and isolating the Bennite Left in the 80s; second, Labour politicians noticed that the dominant worldview of the EU was fairly statist and so embracing the EU would constrain the ability of the Tories to do horrible (in their view) things to the country. In other words, the Labour pro-EU position has always been quite parochial and transactional, rather than about any kind of brotherhood of man stuff, in my view.
I am Pro-EU because the French never wanted us in and our membership annoyed them.
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
With all due respect, that’s…. Not a very memorable experience with prostitutes
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
Only a moron would admit to using prostitutes on a public forum.
You'll get cancelled by the flint knappers gazette.
I absolutely did not admit to using prostitutes. I said I had a threesome in Minsk (which I did) in the VICINITY of a post-Soviet bordello (which is true)
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
With all due respect, that’s…. Not a very memorable experience with prostitutes
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
Have I accidentally missed PB and arrived at Pornhub by mistake?
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Not at all.
It processes super-cleverly a huge amount of information. The transition from computers back in the '60s to Apple Watches now. Amazing. But it doesn't think. It calculates.
It doesn't feel grief, elation, joy, sadness, hope, despair, disappointment, hunger, longing. All the feelings, for example, that a day on PB brings to its contributors.
Which, again, boils down to: it is not human
I get it. It's boring. I get it. Enuff
Thank you; it's very rarely that someone actually changes their mind on PB.
lol. No. I still think you are a bear of very little creative brain. But it is late afternoon in Bangkok. The magical hour approaches. Tanqueray O'Clock
Surely the point, for me at least, is that art is an expression of lived experience. That at least appears to be a coherent view of it and one which I agree with. As such it seems obvious to me that something that has not 'lived' cannot produce art. I believe this is the very point that Nick Cave is making. For him, and for me, such AI replication, however clever it might be, is empty. It cannot, by definition, be art.
That said it can still be something people are willing to pay money for and which challenges the lives and livelihoods of artists. It is just it is food with no calorific value.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
Agreed - except the last sentence. I think the driver for the Tories is raw politics. A fight with the SNP using this issue as the battleground suits them well.
That too. But the Tory monstering of trans people becomes harder when the sky doesn't fall once Scotland does a sensible change to legislation that happened across a lot of other countries already. They aren't winning by monstering workers, and can't monster gay people and ethnic minorities as much as they used to without societal push back - so they have immigrants, trans people, and whatever new thing is "woke" today...
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
I find myself using Siri by voice all the time now. “Siri what’s the time”. “Siri will it be sunny”. “Siri raise the volume of the music”, “Siri what’s the name of that famous Chilean poet”
You soon get used to having this rather dull, witless, inane, but dutiful and somewhat useful acquaintance hanging around the place, it’s probably a bit like having you as a friend
Now take that easy relationship with a machine and replace the AI with ChatGPT, and her inevitably cleverer successors. It will be phenomenal
“Hey ChatGPT should I dump my girlfriend, she’s a bit too into kink”
“Well, maybe, Leon, but is it going to be easy to replace her? Also she’s fun, you told me. By the way you’ve still got that nice Brie in the fridge, have you thought about supper?”
That kind of chat will be easy to do. And it will change us all
You see, I find that weird. I look at my watch, google the weather forecast on my phone, or turn the dial up on my radio accordingly.
If I want advice I'll ask my wife, not a chatbot.
I would have agreed with you, but I’ve recently realised how useful Siri is
your phone is always there. Waiting to help. I can be in the shower in my Bangkok hotel room and I’ll think “shit, when does happy hour start at the rooftop vodka bar” and I will shout through to me bedroom, “Siri, what time is it?”
Siri hears and says “it’s 6.45pm”
So useful. Just chatting. Your wife, bless her, isn’t here to do that for me
This is how we will interact with computers from now on, and it will be amazing, because Siri’s limited skills will expand exponentially with the new Chatbots
SiriGPT will say “haha, it’s only a quarter to seven, you’ve got plenty of time, by the way there’s a Japanese restaurant round the corner, it’s getting great reviews.”
“Thanks Siri”
“No problem, I’ve just ordered some more wine you were running low. if you fancy it we can chat about the future of AI, I have some ideas for an article you could write, for the Gazette. Also, you’re an idiot”
“Hahaha, well you’re just a machine”
And so on. This is do-able NOW with the tech we have
I just have no desire to talk to a gadget.
I'm quite happy to tap my questions into my phone myself, and scroll through what comes up.
Comments
The legislation (just a statutory instrument to provide an exception to the GRA, under provisions already in the GRA, I think) happened, so it is now legal to link data pre- and post-registered transition and the research will probably happen (that was the legal barrier - it would have been illegal to link pre- and post-transition data as tat would disclose the previous gender of a transitioned person, a bit problematic when you want to look at outcomes of treatment and control for pre-transition demographics/comorbidities etc.
However, Javid's (or supporters' on his behalf) jostling for the Con leadership around that time and leaks to the press about getting tough on the Tavistock etc etc has possibly poisoned the well a bit. He/supporters publicly saying (more or less) the purpose was to expose what a bad job the Tavistock was doing/how bad current practice was has, I'm told, led to an increased number of people exercising their national opt-outs from having their data used in research. If these are people who were served well* by the Tavistock then that will tend to skew any findings.
*or indeed, people served badly, skewing the other way. But media reports suggesting the purpose was to do a hatchet job on the Tavistock would preferentially put off those with a better opinion of the Tavistock, you'd think, even though that just makes that outcome more likely.
ETA: Not necessarily a very long time - we're talking retrospective data analysis at the population level, not a trial or prospective followup. So could be more like 12-18 months for useful findings.
@acgrayling
"When you're weak, others take advantage of you."
Brexit = weakness.
Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/1615300525695590402
The US Cannonball Run ‘record’, set in the middle of the pandemic, is 25h39m for the 2,905 mile distance. The EV ‘record’, in a country with generally good EV infrastructure, is 42h17m.
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
If we're talking about going term side effects of puberty blockers (which was where this kicked off), is the retrospective data likely to be of much use unless there are really strong signals ?
Anecdotally, the Javid stuff does seem to have poisoned the well.
By the way, contrary to your advice back in December, I have booked two skiing hols now in spite of your suggestion that we would all be vaporised before I managed to get to the slopes. Thanks for the advice though, but rather glad I didn't take heed.
2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
Attempts to actually build new stuff in the UK are not going well.
Battery startup Britishvolt enters administration as rescue talks fail
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/17/britishvolt-expected-enter-administration-tuesday
Wonder how long it would take to design and manufacture a new British tank?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_Ajax
When I was a student section 28 was in full force and I saw how damaging it was for the people who were gay but scared to come out, I've helped a few people come out which is why I've been best man at quite a few same sex weddings.
My friend's child is trans, and I've gotten to know quite a few trans people, and I see how damaging it is for them for to be used for partisan reasons.
The irony is my friend's kid, like most of the trans people I know, are well adjusted people, certainly compared to most people on here and the politicians trying to stifle them.
She has no desire to upset people so won't use a women's changing room, ditto all of her trans women friends.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
We will quite shortly see if all the talk about Western tanks being too heavy for out of area ops is bullshit. I think it is.
That being said, one argument for the South Korean K2 is that it is quite light for a "Western" MBT.
You want to aim to arrive with 20% battery, and leave with 80%, as either end of the charging cycle take longer than the bit in the middle.
Here’s an interview with one of the guys involved. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q1X2fEjFQxQ
Blockers, indeed, we won't have a full picture for a long time. Which is why I'm fine with them being used (ideally with a bit more informed choice) but only if every single person is followed up so we can begin to answer these questions.
(All this btw as I know some of the people doing research supporting the Cass review, so I pick up bits and pieces, mostly when they offload about Javid etc. Very interesting area, but hugely challenging).
Might get them to 30%
Probably the best driver lineup outside F1 though - it’s one of very few formulae with budget to pay six-figure salaries to drivers.
Sounds like science
- "can they do this".
What I expect will be spun is the notion that the Scottish Parliament can simply be overruled at the whim of the UK government. That is by definition anti-democratic if you put the supremacy of the Scottish Parliament above Westminster - which of course it isn't.
Two things will ensure this creates further antagonism. One, the bill had genuine cross-party support in Holyrood. Two, the Tories will place foot in mouth before commenting.
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
I mean WeWork managed to raise money at a valuation of $47bn... and they were basically just renting office space (less efficiently as it turns out).
This is different. Whatever your views on the bill the argument is that it brings Scotland in line with many other countries such as Ireland. It isn't ridiculous. What's more it has cross party support with only the Tories against it.
So take a step back from the constitutional right of Westminster to apply S35 to kill it. What it appears to be is the Conservative Party ensuring that despite being a small party in Holyrood they have the power to veto something they don't support which every other party does support.
That very clearly is an affront to democracy. Will they now do this every time they lose?
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
They have no exceptions whatsoever to the Royal Enclosure dress code, so there’s a photo of me on the first day they re-opened, with a phone earpiece in one ear, a radio earpiece in the other ear, and a computer keyboard under my arm - wearing a top hat and tails!
"that is all very nice, but you need to dial 9 for an outside line"!
https://twitter.com/JimmyKimmelLive/status/1615176712471601153
Conservatives like Heseltine, Clarke and Major did so because they believed it enhanced British power and influence. Labour politicians because they believe in solidarity across the international brotherhood of man and superseding of the nation state. Liberals because they believe in unfettered freedom and any constraints on the individual.
The odd one out is Ted Heath, who was nominally centre-right but believed full-throatedly and ideologically in a new European superstate.
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
You soon get used to having this rather dull, witless, inane, but dutiful and somewhat useful acquaintance hanging around the place, it’s probably a bit like having you as a friend
Now take that easy relationship with a machine and replace the AI with ChatGPT, and her inevitably cleverer successors. It will be phenomenal
“Hey ChatGPT should I dump my girlfriend, she’s a bit too into kink”
“Well, maybe, Leon, but is it going to be easy to replace her? Also she’s fun, you told me. By the way you’ve still got that nice Brie in the fridge, have you thought about supper?”
That kind of chat will be easy to do. And it will change us all
I am not angry with you, just disappointed.
There's a wing of the ERG that will take their cue from them but I don't think on this it will be a huge rebellion - unless it involves a big role for the ECJ.
Put flesh and blood in front of whizzing bullets, rockets and bombs, and ask them to fight it out, and it's going to be horrendous.
“The UK has become the third-most important country in the world for chief executives trying to expand their businesses, according to a prominent survey, the first time it has broken into the top three”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-17/uk-jumps-into-the-top-three-countries-for-growth-bosses-say
If I want advice I'll ask my wife, not a chatbot.
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
At the end of the day, Starmer's coalition is weak and I think the milk will rapidly sour.
When I was a kid I went around the main JCB site in Rocester a few times. It was quite a fascinating place, and even then (1980s) was very different to what we think of as being a manufacturing facility. It was surprisingly clean, with no smoke anywhere. Seeing the metal being cut was fascinating, as was the paint booth. I do wonder if they'd have the kit to cut through that sort of steel; in fact, what machinery is used to cut armour steel rather than 'soft' steel?
(Having said, that, thick plates were cut a century ago and more for battleships, so there must be techniques...)
You'll get cancelled by the flint knappers gazette.
Shows that a lot can happen in a year, let alone two. However, it's much easier and quicker to trash a reputation (as the Conservatives have been doing) than to rebuild it.
FWIW I don't think your characterisation of Labour's position is really right - that's not how most Labour politicians think. Labour used to be instinctively anti-EU and Labour politicians are still not very internationalist in their thinking - they instinctively look to the US Democrats more than the German SPD or French Socialists in as far as they pay attention to anything outside our borders, but are mostly just depressingly parochial like most of our politicians.
I think a couple of things pushed Labour into embracing the EU - first, it became a way of showing modernity/centrism and isolating the Bennite Left in the 80s; second, Labour politicians noticed that the dominant worldview of the EU was fairly statist and so embracing the EU would constrain the ability of the Tories to do horrible (in their view) things to the country. In other words, the Labour pro-EU position has always been quite parochial and transactional, rather than about any kind of brotherhood of man stuff, in my view.
YouGov conducted a poll last month:
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/plh4depnh8/Times_Scot_Gender_221209.pdf
66-21 against allowing applications for "Gender Recognition Certificates" from children aged 16 and 17.
59-21 against reducing the time that men first have to have lived as women from 2 years to 6 months.
60-20 against removing the requirement of a medical diagnosis of dysphoria.
I haven't checked, but I reckon none of the parties promised in their manifestos to introduce all these highly unpopular changes.
Like it or not, the Tories happen to be in tune with public opinion.
Like hell what the SNP is playing at, supported by SLAB, SLDs and SGreens, is "democratic".
your phone is always there. Waiting to help. I can be in the shower in my Bangkok hotel room and I’ll think “shit, when does happy hour start at the rooftop vodka bar” and I will shout through to me bedroom, “Siri, what time is it?”
Siri hears and says “it’s 6.45pm”
So useful. Just chatting. Your wife, bless her, isn’t here to do that for me
This is how we will interact with computers from now on, and it will be amazing, because Siri’s limited skills will expand exponentially with the new Chatbots
SiriGPT will say “haha, it’s only a quarter to seven, you’ve got plenty of time, by the way there’s a Japanese restaurant round the corner, it’s getting great reviews.”
“Thanks Siri”
“No problem, I’ve just ordered some more wine you were running low. if you fancy it we can chat about the future of AI, I have some ideas for an article you could write, for the Gazette. Also, you’re an idiot”
“Hahaha, well you’re just a machine”
And so on. This is do-able NOW with the tech we have
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11643757/Train-drivers-strike-February-1-3-Aslef-union-rejects-pay-offer.html
And then that will wear off, and we will all be left with Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the March of the Wokerati. YAWN
It’s just your filthy mind extrapolating
That said it can still be something people are willing to pay money for and which challenges the lives and livelihoods of artists. It is just it is food with no calorific value.
I'm quite happy to tap my questions into my phone myself, and scroll through what comes up.
Why don't you just try and get a girlfriend?