You call it a problem. I call it a O(1) mining algorithm.
YourNetworkIsHaunted
Extreme poverty in particular is a far less objective or meaningful measurement than you would think given how often the "everything is fine" crowd likes to cite it. The daily income defined as "extreme poverty" is abysmally low; $2 USD per day wouldn't be enough to get basic necessities for food and shelter, and while its terrifying to think about having to live on even less we shouldn't congratulate ourselves when the bar is just barely above the lowest levels of hell. Different poverty lines show different trends and by standards that would allow a person to live decently rather than merely avoiding the absolute worst deprivations we actually see very little change. And that's before getting into the way poverty is distributed globally and the ways that even with the lowest poverty lines we see a lot of the poorest of the poor who have seen far less of a shift.
I mean, according to the charges Tate hiring young women usually meant some variety of sex trafficking and adult video that he took the money for. Tbh the whole space is sufficiently toxic that she ought to start dropping the banhammer judiciously, but IDK what situation is politically economically etc.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that the internal documents from OpenAI on this marketing push are pretty clear about the real goal here. Plagiarism is one of the most visible and easiest to understand problems enabled by GenAI. My wife is getting an online degree and it's incredibly obvious how many other students are just shamelessly dumping the assignment into chatGPT. So they need to reframe it as part of a wider conversation about GenAI and education, which is where you get the nonsense buzzword courses that don't attempt to engage with even the most obvious problems.
I like how he even had someone with art expertise literally explain it to him and he writes it off as "lol she must have super artist vision for details."
I don't know there's something here about how broken the way we engage with art is. How commodified art is inherently decontextualized and while you can see the beauty or the power or whatever you lose something without the curation and presentation you get from a gallery or a museum.
I also want to dunk on a few of the specific inclusions. AI clearly doesn't understand the point of cubism in particular, making it an exceptionally clear example of what Scott's artist friend was talking about. Including a digital photograph of a collage that clearly makes use of the depth of the actual work is pretty dumb.
I heard the Chinese have a grooming machine that... actually I don't think I want to finish that joke.
See, isn't the 4-hour work week one of those "just make other people work 50+hours a week on your behalf and take the money they've earned for it" schemes? This looks much broader rather than being married to a specific sub-scam. Like, if crypto is down they can sell drop shipping. If drop shipping is cringe they can sell AI slop monetization. If Amazon tightens their standards and starts locking out AI stuff they can go back to crypto.
It's in the same genre of trying to monetize being a conspicuous asshole, but it is one of the more complex evolutions, at least compared to the standard grift-luencer.
One doesn't invade the largest country in the world. Ask Afghanistan and Finland how resisting a Soviet invasion went. all that land mass only helps if the enemy is trying to capture it.
This idea that "criminal" is some kind of basic aspect of someone's being rather than being a status wholly controlled by the government, who can impose or remove it at will, is mind-boggling. And also probably explains a lot of how conservatives keep finding themselves in the jaws of the leopard.
And having played more LoL than I care to admit in high school, that's some truly vile shit. If only it actually made it through the filters to whoever actually made the relevant choices.
Never thought I'd die fighting alongside a League of Legends fan.
Aye. That I could do.
Hat tip to the commenter over there who says point-blank "this is just eugenics."
Also gotta love the Rat community treating very contentious assumptions like settled fact, particularly re: heritability.