I think he means "I will give you a child, choose any of them. I don't know where to put them any longer and they don't even seem to like me."
and Trump would just... "your beer? Haven't seen it. There's just MY two glasses of beer here. A great beer, the greatest. My uncle invented beer, Fred Budweiser Trump. Great IQ, very good genes!"
like sending Vance literally following her around?
laugh all you want, but YOU are next, former Twitter users who refused to pay for their blue badge and had the gall to move to Mastodon or others!
yes, that was all completely wrong. If Trump had been the one on top of the building and had fallen down (maybe accidentally hitting a stray bullet on his way down)... now THAT would have been closer
I think they don't matter with outrage, because outrage explodes in ways that are hard to predict. I mean, I can see the problem with the ad now that it has been pointed out to me. After reading about it repeatedly, I now find it bad and ridiculous and what were they thinking? But at a first look, as a test audience I would have probably rated it as "meh, ok".
It is about fragility, like others said, but It is also about uniqueness, in the sense of "oh, so you think you're soo special!"
- they said they are coming to get us, Ilya
- let's hope they do, Piotr... I'm so tired of this! What do we have today, by the way? Insults, death threats or stupid memes?
to be fair, he did turn orange
"illegal" is overrated, anyway. Trump did a ton of illegal stuff and yet, here we are.
ah I get what you're saying., thanks! "Good" means that what the machine outputs should be statistically similar (based on comparing billions of parameters) to the provided training data, so if the training data gradually gains more examples of e.g. noses being attached to the wrong side of the head, the model also grows more likely to generate similar output.
I think you just found a good example to prove his point, though?
AKA "shit, looks like now we need to re-hire some of those engineers"
TBH those same colleagues were probably just copy/pasting code from the first google result or stackoverflow answer, so arguably AI did make them more productive at what they do
I only have a limited and basic understanding of Machine Learning, but doesn't training models basically work like: "you, machine, spit out several versions of stuff and I, programmer, give you a way of evaluating how 'good' they are, so over time you 'learn' to generate better stuff"? Theoretically giving a newer model the output of a previous one should improve on the result, if the new model has a way of evaluating "improved".
If I feed a ML model with pictures of eldritch beings and tell them that "this is what a human face looks like" I don't think it's surprising that quality deteriorates. What am I missing?
see? It says it right here: "that thing you just did"
don’t be like that, they are just saying that the two events happened at the same time. “Kamala Harris grins as the world marks new hottest day on record”, “Kamala Harris grins as hundreds more flights get cancelled after huge IT outage”. See? Perfectly innocent journalism!
don't be like that, they are just saying that the two events happened at the same time. "Kamala Harris grins as the world marks new hottest day on record", "Kamala Harris grins as hundreds more flights get cancelled after huge IT outage". See? Perfectly innocent journalism!
I think you're all focusing on the wrong part. I didn't donate $45M, I made an investment that I expect to pay back a lot more. Donating to Trump would indeed be cult of personality, buying a US President to protect me and be my pet is pure Elon.
Good luck with that, Indian Priests. God personally stepped in to save Trump from being shot (not the hero firefighter, who didn't meet the minimum income requirement of the Truly Blessed). He just took the tip of his ear, which is practically circumcision.
I have posted this on Reddit (askeconomics) a while back but got no good replies. Copying it here because I don't want to send traffic to Reddit.
What do you think?
> > I see a big push to take employees back to the office. I personally don't mind either working remote or in the office, but I think big companies tend to think rationally in terms of cost/benefit and I haven't seen a convincing explanation yet of why they are so keen to have everyone back. > > If remote work was just as productive as in-person, a remote-only company could use it to be more efficient than their work-in-office competitors, so I assume there's no conclusive evidence that this is the case. But I haven't seen conclusive evidence of the contrary either, and I think employers would have good reason to trumpet any findings at least internally to their employees ("we've seen KPI so-and-so drop with everyone working from home" or "project X was severely delayed by lack of in-person coordination" wouldn't make everyone happy to return in presence, but at least it would make a good argument for a manager to explain to their team) > > Instead, all I keep hearing is inspirational wish-wash like "we value the power of working together". Which is fine, but why are we valuing it more than the cost of office space? > > On the side of employees, I often see arguments like "these companies made a big investment in offices and now they don't want to look stupid by leaving them empty". But all these large companies have spent billions to acquire smaller companies/products and dropped them without a second thought. I can't believe the same companies would now be so sentimentally attached to office buildings if it made any economic sense to close them.