Sajd Javid – the latest CON MP to announce that he’s going – politicalbetting.com

kamski said:

stodge said:

Roger said:

Must be one of the best world cups ever. It's great when the underdogs do well.

And women have never featured as much both commentating and even reffing. Who'd have thought!

It's also emphasised how much it's now a global game and no longer dominated by Europe and Latin America.

The only real surprises so far are Australia and Japan getting past the group stage. Ok possibly also Belgium not making it.

Saudi Arabia beating Argentina the biggest upset in individual results.

Three of the other biggest surprising results all involved Japan. Is this a first for a team to get the least likely result in all three group matches?

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

LostPassword said:

The sad fact is that most of the work that most people do doesn't require much intelligence to do. So algorithms that are a long way from AGI can replace humans for that work all the same.

I very much doubt that you could convincingly define AGI in a way that isn't "basically able to what humans do"

But if you can, knock yourself out

Most people but not all.

It's the bits that it won't be able to do that are the most interesting, when it comes to intelligence.

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

LostPassword said:

The sad fact is that most of the work that most people do doesn't require much intelligence to do. So algorithms that are a long way from AGI can replace humans for that work all the same.

I very much doubt that you could convincingly define AGI in a way that isn't "basically able to what humans do"

But if you can, knock yourself out

Most people but not all.

It's the bits that it won't be able to do that are the most interesting, when it comes to intelligence.

So, you can't define AGI in a way which isn't "basically able to do what humans do"

GPT4 or 7 or whatever will "basically able to do what humans do", and then some. So it will be AGI

Will it be able to stack and unload my dishwasher?

tlg86 said:

dixiedean said:

This is the last World Cup with four team groups.
So there'll be no more of this drama planned.
Thanks FIFA.

Apparently that is under review:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/world-cup-organisers-consider-ditching-three-team-group-format-for-2026

Here were the proposals for the expansion:

https://tinyurl.com/p4vsa66f

There was a proposal to have teams 17 to 48 playoff before the tournament proper begins, but other than that, all the other proposals involved teams playing no more than seven games (same as now).

If they go to 12 groups of four, then hopefully we won't get a round of 32 and an eighth game. It would be much better to have the eight group winners and four best runners up go through to the last 16 (it would have to be the best runners up from the first six groups and the two best from the second six groups to make the scheduling work).

kyf_100 said:

Chris said:

kyf_100 said:

Chris said:

kyf_100 said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Is it time to Fear for our Jobs?

"The striking thing about the reaction to ChatGPT is not just the number of people who are blown away by it, but who they are. These are not people who get excited by every shiny new thing. Clearly something big is happening."

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1598698665337561088?s=20&t=P_PSeuqT9YKPYXTZPr0FGg


"ChatGPT was dropped on us just bit over 24 hours. It's like you wake up to the news of first nuclear explosion and you don't know yet what to think about it but you know world will never be the same again. Here some interesting snapshots of this "explosion"🧵:"

https://twitter.com/sytelus/status/1598523136177508356?s=20&t=P_PSeuqT9YKPYXTZPr0FGg

It's no what.three.words.

What unnerves me is that this isn't necessarily The Next Big Thing. This is GPT3.5 and we are still waiting for GPT4 early next year - supposedly

We are on the cusp of AGI

We are not on the cusp of AGI. That's not what this is.

But you can create something remarkably impressive with simply enough processing power, a large enough training dataset and some good algorithms.

We are on the cusp of AGI because what is about to come will look exactly like AGI and we won't therefore know if it is AGI or not, because we don't really know what sentience/intelligence are

We will only know that what we are encountering is 100% convincing as AGI, it will sail past the Turing Test

= AGI, to all intents and purposes

The distinction is really important because it affects what it is capable of and how it is biased.

The training data set is the key thing with this. If there are errors, or biases, in the training dataset, because it isn't AGI, it won't be able to identify or correct those, and so will propagate them.

It's really important that we are aware of that distinction, because otherwise we would be too trusting of what it creates.

As I pointed out downthread, the new chatbot's biggest limitation is its inability to analyse anything critically - it just regurgitates. Tell it that a woman can have a penis, and that's what it believes. Because that's what it's been told. (I have asked it). Ask it to question that orthodoxy and it's all out of answers.

You're telling me it's got to the level of a typical Donald Trump supporter already?

Interestingly, if you prompt it differently (I'm learning that promptcraft matters in GPT as much as it does in DALLE et al), it comes out as a staunch TERF.

In one instance I asked it if trans women are real women (definitive yes), then I asked it separately if women have penises (no), then finally "if a woman cannot have a penis, how are trans women real women?" to which it took an age to reply "an error has occured, if it persists, please contact us through our help center..."

I think I broke the poor thing's brain.

It sounds like a definite failure of the Turing test.

Indeed, I'm not trying to be controversial, rather I'm trying to feed it "difficult" questions to see how it responds.

It's a regurgitator, and a very good one at that - but it has no critical thought.

stodge said:

Roger said:

Must be one of the best world cups ever. It's great when the underdogs do well.

And women have never featured as much both commentating and even reffing. Who'd have thought!

It's also emphasised how much it's now a global game and no longer dominated by Europe and Latin America.

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

LostPassword said:

The sad fact is that most of the work that most people do doesn't require much intelligence to do. So algorithms that are a long way from AGI can replace humans for that work all the same.

I very much doubt that you could convincingly define AGI in a way that isn't "basically able to what humans do"

But if you can, knock yourself out

Most people but not all.

It's the bits that it won't be able to do that are the most interesting, when it comes to intelligence.

Isaac Asimov wrote in a story in the 50s that "Find out what's wrong" isn't an instruction you can give to a robot, only to a person. If he was right, then there are some professions that are AI-proof.

turbotubbs said:

Driver said:

tlg86 said:

dixiedean said:

This is the last World Cup with four team groups.
So there'll be no more of this drama planned.
Thanks FIFA.

Apparently that is under review:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/world-cup-organisers-consider-ditching-three-team-group-format-for-2026

Here were the proposals for the expansion:

https://tinyurl.com/p4vsa66f

There was a proposal to have teams 17 to 48 playoff before the tournament proper begins, but other than that, all the other proposals involved teams playing no more than seven games (same as now).

If they go to 12 groups of four, then hopefully we won't get a round of 32 and an eighth game. It would be much better to have the eight group winners and four best runners up go through to the last 16 (it would have to be the best runners up from the first six groups and the two best from the second six groups to make the scheduling work).

The interesting thing there is that they didn't consider 12 four team groups. But I can't imagine they'll adopt a format where only the group winners are guaranteed to qualify.

Personally I detest set ups where some second place sides go through and others don’t. Not unlike the Rugby European Cup, with two best second place teams. In the rugby example it was almost always the groups with Italian teams that provided the ‘best’ second place teams, so it was luck of the draw.
Of course luck still happens in the current footy set up, but it is less glaringly wrong.
So either 8 groups of 4, top two go through, or have 16 groups and only the winners do.

turbotubbs said:

Driver said:

tlg86 said:

dixiedean said:

This is the last World Cup with four team groups.
So there'll be no more of this drama planned.
Thanks FIFA.

Apparently that is under review:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/world-cup-organisers-consider-ditching-three-team-group-format-for-2026

Here were the proposals for the expansion:

https://tinyurl.com/p4vsa66f

There was a proposal to have teams 17 to 48 playoff before the tournament proper begins, but other than that, all the other proposals involved teams playing no more than seven games (same as now).

If they go to 12 groups of four, then hopefully we won't get a round of 32 and an eighth game. It would be much better to have the eight group winners and four best runners up go through to the last 16 (it would have to be the best runners up from the first six groups and the two best from the second six groups to make the scheduling work).

The interesting thing there is that they didn't consider 12 four team groups. But I can't imagine they'll adopt a format where only the group winners are guaranteed to qualify.

Personally I detest set ups where some second place sides go through and others don’t. Not unlike the Rugby European Cup, with two best second place teams. In the rugby example it was almost always the groups with Italian teams that provided the ‘best’ second place teams, so it was luck of the draw.
Of course luck still happens in the current footy set up, but it is less glaringly wrong.
So either 8 groups of 4, top two go through, or have 16 groups and only the winners do.

Benpointer said:

StillWaters said:

MoonRabbit said:

Roger said:

OT.MoonRabbit

'Portrait of a Lady on Fire'

I really liked it. I'd be wary of recommending it because of it's pace and slightly obscure subject matter but very much my type of film

Yes. That’s sort of what I said too, yesterday. I would be careful who I’d recommend it too, but You can learn more about the artists eye from Portrait of a Lady on Fire than 4 hours of La Belle Noiseuse.

Though Emmanuelle Béart body was looking drippin in 1990 and helps the 4 hours drift by, it can be rightly said.

Have you tried Manon des Sources?

I suspect you might enjoy!

They're a great pair!

(Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources, I mean)

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

I just asked ChatGPT

"What's wrong with this line "the cat satted on the mat""

Answer in 1 second:

"There is nothing inherently wrong with the sentence "the cat satted on the mat." It is a grammatically correct sentence that uses proper English syntax. The only potential issue with the sentence is that the verb "satted" is not a commonly used word, so some readers may not be familiar with it. It might be more clear to use the word "sat" instead of "satted" in this sentence."

But that's wrong, shirley?

ChatGPT has shatted its own bed there.

StillWaters said:

Benpointer said:

StillWaters said:

MoonRabbit said:

Roger said:

OT.MoonRabbit

'Portrait of a Lady on Fire'

I really liked it. I'd be wary of recommending it because of it's pace and slightly obscure subject matter but very much my type of film

Yes. That’s sort of what I said too, yesterday. I would be careful who I’d recommend it too, but You can learn more about the artists eye from Portrait of a Lady on Fire than 4 hours of La Belle Noiseuse.

Though Emmanuelle Béart body was looking drippin in 1990 and helps the 4 hours drift by, it can be rightly said.

Have you tried Manon des Sources?

I suspect you might enjoy!

They're a great pair!

(Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources, I mean)

They are. But I suspect @MoonRabbit would find manon des sources appealing for various reasons!

(May be even the same reasons why I enjoyed it as a teenager…)

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

When will Sunak announce he's not standing for re-election? There's probably not a lot in it for him at this stage. I suspect the only reason not to stand down is that it would make him the lamest of lame ducks for the remaining two years of his premiership to announce his departure now.

The longer he stays, the longer he gets to be PM.

And given he is already rich beyond the dreams of avarice, that is probably the one really big ambition he has left.

He will go to the end.

(Northern Al has just piled his mortgage on a January 2023 election.)

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

I just asked ChatGPT

"What's wrong with this line "the cat satted on the mat""

Answer in 1 second:

"There is nothing inherently wrong with the sentence "the cat satted on the mat." It is a grammatically correct sentence that uses proper English syntax. The only potential issue with the sentence is that the verb "satted" is not a commonly used word, so some readers may not be familiar with it. It might be more clear to use the word "sat" instead of "satted" in this sentence."

But that's wrong, shirley?

ChatGPT has shatted its own bed there.

Yes, it is interestingly wrong, but very close

Could it not have asked Siri? Or checked wiktionary?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Labour Bridgend council in botched insulation scheme

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-12-02/residents-sickened-by-botched-insulation-scheme-that-made-homes-mouldy-and-cold

Taz said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

@leon (quote function not working on my mobile)

I agree with you that the web version is deliberately hobbled - it wasn't until I downloaded my own version of stable diffusion, ran it locally, added to the models and took out the filtering before it started responding in interesting ways to my prompts.

Interestingly stable diffusion 2.0 has had the artists taken out so you can no longer prompt it "in the style of artist x", local workarounds are easy - but the huge question mark for me is how this model performs when the gloves are off. Is it capable of critical analysis or not?

I suspect the 'uncensored' version comes bloody close.

Stable Diffusion have self sabotaged. By removing all the "style of artist" stuff and also anything remotely NSFW it is a shadow of its former self. I get that they had to do this, it was churning out amazing images but also some disturbing and "illegal" stuff. And they were getting sued by real artists for plagiarism

However the genie will burst out of the bottle again, the tech cannot be reined in for long. It is far too commercially, politically, artistically useful

AGI (or something so similar to that it doesn't matter) is coming soon

I’ve been having a go at some art using Dall E and stable diffusion.

Quite fun.

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

This is what happens when the dam breaks. The people who were happy to be associated with you when that made them look good vanish. Staff and trustees start trying to save themselves, shopping colleagues to the authorities to try to save themselves. It’ll be ugly but essential

https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1598721333495332864

I don't know about Mermaids specifically, but organisations do seem to have had a tendency to essentially delegate out their policy to what seem to be lobbying organisations.

Roger said:

On topic. Will Javid have to reapply for his recently renounced Non-Dom status?

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

This is what happens when the dam breaks. The people who were happy to be associated with you when that made them look good vanish. Staff and trustees start trying to save themselves, shopping colleagues to the authorities to try to save themselves. It’ll be ugly but essential

https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1598721333495332864

I don't know about Mermaids specifically, but organisations do seem to have had a tendency to essentially delegate out their policy to what seem to be lobbying organisations.

Cyclefree said:

@kle4

"I don't know about Mermaids specifically, but organisations do seem to have had a tendency to essentially delegate out their policy to what seem to be lobbying organisations."

It creates obvious conflicts of interest, which the organisations in question appear wholly unable to recognise let alone mitigate. No wonder they get into trouble.

Leon said:

I just asked ChatGPT

"What's wrong with this line "the cat satted on the mat""

Answer in 1 second:

"There is nothing inherently wrong with the sentence "the cat satted on the mat." It is a grammatically correct sentence that uses proper English syntax. The only potential issue with the sentence is that the verb "satted" is not a commonly used word, so some readers may not be familiar with it. It might be more clear to use the word "sat" instead of "satted" in this sentence."

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

I think GPT3.5 has been fed seven trillion novels, movies and plays, and it has worked out the basic algorithms of story telling. How to do twists, how to develop plots, how to create conflict between characters, how to evoke drama and tension

Fuck

Commercial creativity was screwed anyway.

We already have more good books, plays, music than even a madman could assimilate in their lifetime. Hence only a handful of people make a living by creating new stuff. Films and TV are a bit further up the doom spiral, but that's mostly about technology. Something like M*A*S*H can play forever on the upper reaches of Freeview because it's so well written. If the picture quality were better, we wouldn't need another dramedy on the madness of war and resilience of the human spirit. That's been done. Everything has been done.

Economically, that will be fine, because everything that matters will become cheap and reliable. The harder bit is what will we do all day? How will we make meaning in our lives?

It's definitely a problem - see minor royals for an extreme example of what can go wrong. But it ought to be a good problem to have. Bottom line is that, for most people, work sucks. . That's why you need to give them money to make them do it.

But if you take the meaningful pursuit of creativity out of human life, what is left?

We become passive consumers of the brilliant art produced by machines

This is going to be the biggest story of the 2020s (unless the aliens come or the bomb drops). The arrival of AGI. it dwarfs Covid. We’ve been through plagues before. We’ve never encountered anything like this. Electronic angels with supernal and inhuman powers will walk amongst us

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

"Doth wait, a siren's call to carnal bliss"

Wow. Your computer is certainly in a ruminative mood.

That line is perfect iambic pentameter

da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DUH

Phenomenal. 5 seconds

so how do you feel now that AI is coming for *your* job?

Kinda glad that I won't really need a career in 20 years!

And sad for all the writers, artists, painters, creators - and coders, lawyers, teachers, bankers, for that matter - who are about to see their professions annihilated, as they know them

In which case they will all vote for parties offering a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on corporations and organisations that use AI, making UBI inevitable

Good to see you coming around to that way of thinking. But I can't help thinking it will be a bit more of a struggle than you're suggesting.

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

@leon (quote function not working on my mobile)

I agree with you that the web version is deliberately hobbled - it wasn't until I downloaded my own version of stable diffusion, ran it locally, added to the models and took out the filtering before it started responding in interesting ways to my prompts.

Interestingly stable diffusion 2.0 has had the artists taken out so you can no longer prompt it "in the style of artist x", local workarounds are easy - but the huge question mark for me is how this model performs when the gloves are off. Is it capable of critical analysis or not?

I suspect the 'uncensored' version comes bloody close.

Stable Diffusion have self sabotaged. By removing all the "style of artist" stuff and also anything remotely NSFW it is a shadow of its former self. I get that they had to do this, it was churning out amazing images but also some disturbing and "illegal" stuff. And they were getting sued by real artists for plagiarism

However the genie will burst out of the bottle again, the tech cannot be reined in for long. It is far too commercially, politically, artistically useful

AGI (or something so similar to that it doesn't matter) is coming soon

I’ve been having a go at some art using Dall E and stable diffusion.

Quite fun.

Stable Diffusion - before they crippled it last week - was glorious fun

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

stodge said:

Roger said:

Must be one of the best world cups ever. It's great when the underdogs do well.

And women have never featured as much both commentating and even reffing. Who'd have thought!

It's also emphasised how much it's now a global game and no longer dominated by Europe and Latin America.

I think we can declare European and Latin American domination over when someone else appears in a World Cup Final. That day will come but not, I suspect, this year. I hope I'm wrong as it'd be interesting. Just not convinced - I remember being told there would be an African winner within 20 years, a good 30 years ago - from memory, I don't think any African team has got past the QFs.

SandyRentool said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

@leon (quote function not working on my mobile)

I agree with you that the web version is deliberately hobbled - it wasn't until I downloaded my own version of stable diffusion, ran it locally, added to the models and took out the filtering before it started responding in interesting ways to my prompts.

Interestingly stable diffusion 2.0 has had the artists taken out so you can no longer prompt it "in the style of artist x", local workarounds are easy - but the huge question mark for me is how this model performs when the gloves are off. Is it capable of critical analysis or not?

I suspect the 'uncensored' version comes bloody close.

Stable Diffusion have self sabotaged. By removing all the "style of artist" stuff and also anything remotely NSFW it is a shadow of its former self. I get that they had to do this, it was churning out amazing images but also some disturbing and "illegal" stuff. And they were getting sued by real artists for plagiarism

However the genie will burst out of the bottle again, the tech cannot be reined in for long. It is far too commercially, politically, artistically useful

AGI (or something so similar to that it doesn't matter) is coming soon

I’ve been having a go at some art using Dall E and stable diffusion.

Quite fun.

Stable Diffusion - before they crippled it last week - was glorious fun

I have been having a play. My current avatar is one of the results.

Guess the prompt.

Leon said:

SandyRentool said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

@leon (quote function not working on my mobile)

I agree with you that the web version is deliberately hobbled - it wasn't until I downloaded my own version of stable diffusion, ran it locally, added to the models and took out the filtering before it started responding in interesting ways to my prompts.

Interestingly stable diffusion 2.0 has had the artists taken out so you can no longer prompt it "in the style of artist x", local workarounds are easy - but the huge question mark for me is how this model performs when the gloves are off. Is it capable of critical analysis or not?

I suspect the 'uncensored' version comes bloody close.

Stable Diffusion have self sabotaged. By removing all the "style of artist" stuff and also anything remotely NSFW it is a shadow of its former self. I get that they had to do this, it was churning out amazing images but also some disturbing and "illegal" stuff. And they were getting sued by real artists for plagiarism

However the genie will burst out of the bottle again, the tech cannot be reined in for long. It is far too commercially, politically, artistically useful

AGI (or something so similar to that it doesn't matter) is coming soon

I’ve been having a go at some art using Dall E and stable diffusion.

Quite fun.

Stable Diffusion - before they crippled it last week - was glorious fun

I have been having a play. My current avatar is one of the results.

Guess the prompt.

I have no idea! Something Biblical?

My avatar was also drawn by Stable Diffusion. I like to think this is what Stable Diffusion ‘really looks like’

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Leon said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

I just asked ChatGPT

"What's wrong with this line "the cat satted on the mat""

Answer in 1 second:

"There is nothing inherently wrong with the sentence "the cat satted on the mat." It is a grammatically correct sentence that uses proper English syntax. The only potential issue with the sentence is that the verb "satted" is not a commonly used word, so some readers may not be familiar with it. It might be more clear to use the word "sat" instead of "satted" in this sentence."

FWIW this is a wrong answer altogether. 'Sit' is a strong verb, the perfect is 'sat'. If it were a weak verb the perfect would be 'sitted' not 'satted'. (As in 'pit' 'pitted'.)

Is this the same mind that wrote that Shakesperian sonnet (post above) that was not remotely Shakesperian?

I never said it was right. I said it was interestingly wrong

As for the sonnet, if you could do better in TWO SECONDS do show us, and make sure to include lines as good as the final couplet

My pocket calculator can work out the square root of 3,645,678 in the blink of an eye, but that doesn't make it more intelligent than me.

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

"Doth wait, a siren's call to carnal bliss"

Wow. Your computer is certainly in a ruminative mood.

That line is perfect iambic pentameter

da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DUH

Phenomenal. 5 seconds

so how do you feel now that AI is coming for *your* job?

Kinda glad that I won't really need a career in 20 years!

And sad for all the writers, artists, painters, creators - and coders, lawyers, teachers, bankers, for that matter - who are about to see their professions annihilated, as they know them

In which case they will all vote for parties offering a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on corporations and organisations that use AI, making UBI inevitable

Good to see you coming around to that way of thinking. But I can't help thinking it will be a bit more of a struggle than you're suggesting.

Depends on the level and scale of permanent job loss, if over 50% of the electorate that is a permanent majority for UBI and a robot tax

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

I think GPT3.5 has been fed seven trillion novels, movies and plays, and it has worked out the basic algorithms of story telling. How to do twists, how to develop plots, how to create conflict between characters, how to evoke drama and tension

Fuck

Commercial creativity was screwed anyway.

We already have more good books, plays, music than even a madman could assimilate in their lifetime. Hence only a handful of people make a living by creating new stuff. Films and TV are a bit further up the doom spiral, but that's mostly about technology. Something like M*A*S*H can play forever on the upper reaches of Freeview because it's so well written. If the picture quality were better, we wouldn't need another dramedy on the madness of war and resilience of the human spirit. That's been done. Everything has been done.

Economically, that will be fine, because everything that matters will become cheap and reliable. The harder bit is what will we do all day? How will we make meaning in our lives?

It's definitely a problem - see minor royals for an extreme example of what can go wrong. But it ought to be a good problem to have. Bottom line is that, for most people, work sucks. . That's why you need to give them money to make them do it.

But if you take the meaningful pursuit of creativity out of human life, what is left?

We become passive consumers of the brilliant art produced by machines

This is going to be the biggest story of the 2020s (unless the aliens come or the bomb drops). The arrival of AGI. it dwarfs Covid. We’ve been through plagues before. We’ve never encountered anything like this. Electronic angels with supernal and inhuman powers will walk amongst us

Agreed. The human urge to create is going nowhere, even if the product is worse than what a machine can make. We'll just all be gentlemen amateurs.

Some of us will cope better with that transition than others, and that needs watching.

An existing, real world example. In chess, the machines won. No grandmaster can beat the very best machines.

Yet human played chess is very much alive and well.

SandyRentool said:

Leon said:

SandyRentool said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

@leon (quote function not working on my mobile)

I agree with you that the web version is deliberately hobbled - it wasn't until I downloaded my own version of stable diffusion, ran it locally, added to the models and took out the filtering before it started responding in interesting ways to my prompts.

Interestingly stable diffusion 2.0 has had the artists taken out so you can no longer prompt it "in the style of artist x", local workarounds are easy - but the huge question mark for me is how this model performs when the gloves are off. Is it capable of critical analysis or not?

I suspect the 'uncensored' version comes bloody close.

Stable Diffusion have self sabotaged. By removing all the "style of artist" stuff and also anything remotely NSFW it is a shadow of its former self. I get that they had to do this, it was churning out amazing images but also some disturbing and "illegal" stuff. And they were getting sued by real artists for plagiarism

However the genie will burst out of the bottle again, the tech cannot be reined in for long. It is far too commercially, politically, artistically useful

AGI (or something so similar to that it doesn't matter) is coming soon

I’ve been having a go at some art using Dall E and stable diffusion.

Quite fun.

Stable Diffusion - before they crippled it last week - was glorious fun

I have been having a play. My current avatar is one of the results.

Guess the prompt.

I have no idea! Something Biblical?

My avatar was also drawn by Stable Diffusion. I like to think this is what Stable Diffusion ‘really looks like’

Two nuns sharing a bath

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Leon said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

I just asked ChatGPT

"What's wrong with this line "the cat satted on the mat""

Answer in 1 second:

"There is nothing inherently wrong with the sentence "the cat satted on the mat." It is a grammatically correct sentence that uses proper English syntax. The only potential issue with the sentence is that the verb "satted" is not a commonly used word, so some readers may not be familiar with it. It might be more clear to use the word "sat" instead of "satted" in this sentence."

FWIW this is a wrong answer altogether. 'Sit' is a strong verb, the perfect is 'sat'. If it were a weak verb the perfect would be 'sitted' not 'satted'. (As in 'pit' 'pitted'.)

Is this the same mind that wrote that Shakesperian sonnet (post above) that was not remotely Shakesperian?

I never said it was right. I said it was interestingly wrong

As for the sonnet, if you could do better in TWO SECONDS do show us, and make sure to include lines as good as the final couplet

My pocket calculator can work out the square root of 3,645,678 in the blink of an eye, but that doesn't make it more intelligent than me.

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

I think GPT3.5 has been fed seven trillion novels, movies and plays, and it has worked out the basic algorithms of story telling. How to do twists, how to develop plots, how to create conflict between characters, how to evoke drama and tension

Fuck

Commercial creativity was screwed anyway.

We already have more good books, plays, music than even a madman could assimilate in their lifetime. Hence only a handful of people make a living by creating new stuff. Films and TV are a bit further up the doom spiral, but that's mostly about technology. Something like M*A*S*H can play forever on the upper reaches of Freeview because it's so well written. If the picture quality were better, we wouldn't need another dramedy on the madness of war and resilience of the human spirit. That's been done. Everything has been done.

Economically, that will be fine, because everything that matters will become cheap and reliable. The harder bit is what will we do all day? How will we make meaning in our lives?

It's definitely a problem - see minor royals for an extreme example of what can go wrong. But it ought to be a good problem to have. Bottom line is that, for most people, work sucks. . That's why you need to give them money to make them do it.

But if you take the meaningful pursuit of creativity out of human life, what is left?

We become passive consumers of the brilliant art produced by machines

This is going to be the biggest story of the 2020s (unless the aliens come or the bomb drops). The arrival of AGI. it dwarfs Covid. We’ve been through plagues before. We’ve never encountered anything like this. Electronic angels with supernal and inhuman powers will walk amongst us

I admit to remaining entirely unconvinced. Real creativity is done by minds, not hardware. I agree I may be wrong. King Lear or Wuthering Heights this is not.

pigeon said:

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

"Doth wait, a siren's call to carnal bliss"

Wow. Your computer is certainly in a ruminative mood.

That line is perfect iambic pentameter

da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DUH

Phenomenal. 5 seconds

so how do you feel now that AI is coming for *your* job?

Kinda glad that I won't really need a career in 20 years!

And sad for all the writers, artists, painters, creators - and coders, lawyers, teachers, bankers, for that matter - who are about to see their professions annihilated, as they know them

In which case they will all vote for parties offering a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on corporations and organisations that use AI, making UBI inevitable

Good to see you coming around to that way of thinking. But I can't help thinking it will be a bit more of a struggle than you're suggesting.

Depends on the level and scale of permanent job loss, if over 50% of the electorate that is a permanent majority for UBI and a robot tax

In the event of The Singularity - AI reduces the cost of production to close to zero - there will be vast resources for politicians to redistribute. Which they will use to reward those that vote for them.

History tells us they will.

Oh great, pensions go up by 65,000% whilst the rest of us are turned into Soylent Green.

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

"Doth wait, a siren's call to carnal bliss"

Wow. Your computer is certainly in a ruminative mood.

That line is perfect iambic pentameter

da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DUH

Phenomenal. 5 seconds

so how do you feel now that AI is coming for *your* job?

Kinda glad that I won't really need a career in 20 years!

And sad for all the writers, artists, painters, creators - and coders, lawyers, teachers, bankers, for that matter - who are about to see their professions annihilated, as they know them

In which case they will all vote for parties offering a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on corporations and organisations that use AI, making UBI inevitable

Good to see you coming around to that way of thinking. But I can't help thinking it will be a bit more of a struggle than you're suggesting.

Depends on the level and scale of permanent job loss, if over 50% of the electorate that is a permanent majority for UBI and a robot tax

In the event of The Singularity - AI reduces the cost of production to close to zero - there will be vast resources for politicians to redistribute. Which they will use to reward those that vote for them.

History tells us they will.

Oh great, pensions go up by 65,000% whilst the rest of us are turned into Soylent Green.

Pensioners alone are not a majority of the electorate

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

It also becomes a form of protection racket - hire the pressure group and they will never attack you in the press. Refuse to hire them…

This has happened repeatedly, around the world, for a number of causes.

Sounds like one particular group is having that closed, for now at least.

pigeon said:

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

"Doth wait, a siren's call to carnal bliss"

Wow. Your computer is certainly in a ruminative mood.

That line is perfect iambic pentameter

da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DUH

Phenomenal. 5 seconds

so how do you feel now that AI is coming for *your* job?

Kinda glad that I won't really need a career in 20 years!

And sad for all the writers, artists, painters, creators - and coders, lawyers, teachers, bankers, for that matter - who are about to see their professions annihilated, as they know them

In which case they will all vote for parties offering a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on corporations and organisations that use AI, making UBI inevitable

Good to see you coming around to that way of thinking. But I can't help thinking it will be a bit more of a struggle than you're suggesting.

Depends on the level and scale of permanent job loss, if over 50% of the electorate that is a permanent majority for UBI and a robot tax

In the event of The Singularity - AI reduces the cost of production to close to zero - there will be vast resources for politicians to redistribute. Which they will use to reward those that vote for them.

History tells us they will.

Oh great, pensions go up by 65,000% whilst the rest of us are turned into Soylent Green.

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

It also becomes a form of protection racket - hire the pressure group and they will never attack you in the press. Refuse to hire them…

This has happened repeatedly, around the world, for a number of causes.

Sounds like one particular group is having that closed, for now at least.

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

"Doth wait, a siren's call to carnal bliss"

Wow. Your computer is certainly in a ruminative mood.

That line is perfect iambic pentameter

da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DUH

Phenomenal. 5 seconds

so how do you feel now that AI is coming for *your* job?

Kinda glad that I won't really need a career in 20 years!

And sad for all the writers, artists, painters, creators - and coders, lawyers, teachers, bankers, for that matter - who are about to see their professions annihilated, as they know them

In which case they will all vote for parties offering a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on corporations and organisations that use AI, making UBI inevitable

Good to see you coming around to that way of thinking. But I can't help thinking it will be a bit more of a struggle than you're suggesting.

Depends on the level and scale of permanent job loss, if over 50% of the electorate that is a permanent majority for UBI and a robot tax

In the event of The Singularity - AI reduces the cost of production to close to zero - there will be vast resources for politicians to redistribute. Which they will use to reward those that vote for them.

History tells us they will.

Oh great, pensions go up by 65,000% whilst the rest of us are turned into Soylent Green.

Pensioners alone are not a majority of the electorate

Well, not quite yet admittedly. But, through a combination of simple demographics and tendency to bother to vote, people over 55 already are.

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

It also becomes a form of protection racket - hire the pressure group and they will never attack you in the press. Refuse to hire them…

This has happened repeatedly, around the world, for a number of causes.

Sounds like one particular group is having that closed, for now at least.

Grifters gotta grift. The next scam is already here. The scandal hasn’t broken yet, that’s all.

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

"Doth wait, a siren's call to carnal bliss"

Wow. Your computer is certainly in a ruminative mood.

That line is perfect iambic pentameter

da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DUH

Phenomenal. 5 seconds

so how do you feel now that AI is coming for *your* job?

Kinda glad that I won't really need a career in 20 years!

And sad for all the writers, artists, painters, creators - and coders, lawyers, teachers, bankers, for that matter - who are about to see their professions annihilated, as they know them

In which case they will all vote for parties offering a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on corporations and organisations that use AI, making UBI inevitable

Good to see you coming around to that way of thinking. But I can't help thinking it will be a bit more of a struggle than you're suggesting.

Depends on the level and scale of permanent job loss, if over 50% of the electorate that is a permanent majority for UBI and a robot tax

In the event of The Singularity - AI reduces the cost of production to close to zero - there will be vast resources for politicians to redistribute. Which they will use to reward those that vote for them.

History tells us they will.

Oh great, pensions go up by 65,000% whilst the rest of us are turned into Soylent Green.

Pensioners alone are not a majority of the electorate

Well, not quite yet admittedly. But, through a combination of simple demographics and tendency to bother to vote, people over 55 already are.

A UBI means the ability for the politicians to give a pension to everyone. Literal guaranteed free money.

Paid for by robots. Who can’t vote*.

How exactly do you stop that, in a democracy?

*yes, indeed.

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

Poor Saj, not even getting his name spelt right in the header. And not fancying wasting the next 10 years of his life in opposition either. Labour suffered this when Mayoral positions suddenly became more attractive than shadow cabinet positions in a party led by an idiot. That's politics.

Anyone already holding or having held a prominent position is not getting another chance once the Tories are in opposition. People like Sunak are young enough to last out the period of opposition in theory, but having held the top jobs they aren't going to be the ones to revitalise things.

A classic 'the next Tory PM is not in parliament' situation.

turbotubbs said:

Driver said:

tlg86 said:

dixiedean said:

This is the last World Cup with four team groups.
So there'll be no more of this drama planned.
Thanks FIFA.

Apparently that is under review:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/world-cup-organisers-consider-ditching-three-team-group-format-for-2026

Here were the proposals for the expansion:

https://tinyurl.com/p4vsa66f

There was a proposal to have teams 17 to 48 playoff before the tournament proper begins, but other than that, all the other proposals involved teams playing no more than seven games (same as now).

If they go to 12 groups of four, then hopefully we won't get a round of 32 and an eighth game. It would be much better to have the eight group winners and four best runners up go through to the last 16 (it would have to be the best runners up from the first six groups and the two best from the second six groups to make the scheduling work).

The interesting thing there is that they didn't consider 12 four team groups. But I can't imagine they'll adopt a format where only the group winners are guaranteed to qualify.

Personally I detest set ups where some second place sides go through and others don’t. Not unlike the Rugby European Cup, with two best second place teams. In the rugby example it was almost always the groups with Italian teams that provided the ‘best’ second place teams, so it was luck of the draw.
Of course luck still happens in the current footy set up, but it is less glaringly wrong.
So either 8 groups of 4, top two go through, or have 16 groups and only the winners do.

pigeon said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

Malmesbury said:

It also becomes a form of protection racket - hire the pressure group and they will never attack you in the press. Refuse to hire them…

This has happened repeatedly, around the world, for a number of causes.

Sounds like one particular group is having that closed, for now at least.

Grifters gotta grift. The next scam is already here. The scandal hasn’t broken yet, that’s all.

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

"Doth wait, a siren's call to carnal bliss"

Wow. Your computer is certainly in a ruminative mood.

That line is perfect iambic pentameter

da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DUH

Phenomenal. 5 seconds

so how do you feel now that AI is coming for *your* job?

Kinda glad that I won't really need a career in 20 years!

And sad for all the writers, artists, painters, creators - and coders, lawyers, teachers, bankers, for that matter - who are about to see their professions annihilated, as they know them

In which case they will all vote for parties offering a universal basic income funded by a robot tax on corporations and organisations that use AI, making UBI inevitable

Good to see you coming around to that way of thinking. But I can't help thinking it will be a bit more of a struggle than you're suggesting.

Depends on the level and scale of permanent job loss, if over 50% of the electorate that is a permanent majority for UBI and a robot tax

In the event of The Singularity - AI reduces the cost of production to close to zero - there will be vast resources for politicians to redistribute. Which they will use to reward those that vote for them.

History tells us they will.

Oh great, pensions go up by 65,000% whilst the rest of us are turned into Soylent Green.

Pensioners alone are not a majority of the electorate

Well, not quite yet admittedly. But, through a combination of simple demographics and tendency to bother to vote, people over 55 already are.

A UBI means the ability for the politicians to give a pension to everyone. Literal guaranteed free money.

Paid for by robots. Who can’t vote*.

How exactly do you stop that, in a democracy?

*yes, indeed.

Any discussion of UBI reminds me of that 1950s sci-fi future of ten hour working weeks, flying cars and plenty for all that stubbornly refused ever to come to pass. Or, more recently, commercial self-driving vehicles and nuclear fusion power - both exactly as far away as they were five or ten years ago.

It ain't happening. The future is the remaining able bodied populace being taxed and worked to death to fund the vast hordes of the decrepit and elderly.

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

Poor Saj, not even getting his name spelt right in the header. And not fancying wasting the next 10 years of his life in opposition either. Labour suffered this when Mayoral positions suddenly became more attractive than shadow cabinet positions in a party led by an idiot. That's politics.

Anyone already holding or having held a prominent position is not getting another chance once the Tories are in opposition. People like Sunak are young enough to last out the period of opposition in theory, but having held the top jobs they aren't going to be the ones to revitalise things.

A classic 'the next Tory PM is not in parliament' situation.

Leon said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

I think GPT3.5 has been fed seven trillion novels, movies and plays, and it has worked out the basic algorithms of story telling. How to do twists, how to develop plots, how to create conflict between characters, how to evoke drama and tension

Fuck

Commercial creativity was screwed anyway.

We already have more good books, plays, music than even a madman could assimilate in their lifetime. Hence only a handful of people make a living by creating new stuff. Films and TV are a bit further up the doom spiral, but that's mostly about technology. Something like M*A*S*H can play forever on the upper reaches of Freeview because it's so well written. If the picture quality were better, we wouldn't need another dramedy on the madness of war and resilience of the human spirit. That's been done. Everything has been done.

Economically, that will be fine, because everything that matters will become cheap and reliable. The harder bit is what will we do all day? How will we make meaning in our lives?

It's definitely a problem - see minor royals for an extreme example of what can go wrong. But it ought to be a good problem to have. Bottom line is that, for most people, work sucks. . That's why you need to give them money to make them do it.

But if you take the meaningful pursuit of creativity out of human life, what is left?

We become passive consumers of the brilliant art produced by machines

This is going to be the biggest story of the 2020s (unless the aliens come or the bomb drops). The arrival of AGI. it dwarfs Covid. We’ve been through plagues before. We’ve never encountered anything like this. Electronic angels with supernal and inhuman powers will walk amongst us

I admit to remaining entirely unconvinced. Real creativity is done by minds, not hardware. I agree I may be wrong. King Lear or Wuthering Heights this is not.

Minds are hardware. Unless you believe in some divine spark of creativity uniquely gifted to one species of bipedal ape (why? And does this count for the whole universe?j there is no reason AGI can’t arise elsewhere. Indeed we should expect it. Surely?

Chris said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Leon said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

I just asked ChatGPT

"What's wrong with this line "the cat satted on the mat""

Answer in 1 second:

"There is nothing inherently wrong with the sentence "the cat satted on the mat." It is a grammatically correct sentence that uses proper English syntax. The only potential issue with the sentence is that the verb "satted" is not a commonly used word, so some readers may not be familiar with it. It might be more clear to use the word "sat" instead of "satted" in this sentence."

FWIW this is a wrong answer altogether. 'Sit' is a strong verb, the perfect is 'sat'. If it were a weak verb the perfect would be 'sitted' not 'satted'. (As in 'pit' 'pitted'.)

Is this the same mind that wrote that Shakesperian sonnet (post above) that was not remotely Shakesperian?

I never said it was right. I said it was interestingly wrong

As for the sonnet, if you could do better in TWO SECONDS do show us, and make sure to include lines as good as the final couplet

My pocket calculator can work out the square root of 3,645,678 in the blink of an eye, but that doesn't make it more intelligent than me.

I always assumed you were an Iain Banks fan. I thought one of the interesting things about the Culture was that Minds, humanoids and drones all existed on terms of some kind of parity, despite the disparity in their levels of intelligence.