Seriously?
1,739 jihadi videos, “a phenomenal quantity of scenes of decapitation, throat-slitting, shootings,”
Oh yeah, you know, being curious online.
Adult moderators for social networks/content platforms get serious trauma from less than that. The kid needs help, he's being cut from that shit and followed by educators. And no, that's not "police custody".
but the more challenging and interesting parts, architecture and the debugging remain for programmers
And is made harder for them. Because it turns out the "easy" part is not that easy to do correctly, and if not it just makes maintaining the thing miserable.
I searched the article for anything meaningful. There is absolutely nothing.
They relayed two isolated sentences of a guy, notoriously son of a legendary animation artist, notoriously not quite as talented and in a conflictual relationship with him. So not the legendary artist, the one that nobody would know if he wasn't his son.
The two sentences are "This thing is likely to happen. No idea how it will be perceived."
Yeaaaah.
Not Google, but my favorite was "ethnaically anabigaus" appearing randomly on generated pictures.
You must connect with the road, every km or so stop and hug the asphalt.
The paper was right. I read that and I'm dying right now.
Dude.
You could at least look at what you're replying to before jumping in and going full outrage mode. I didn't even say anything about what I thought of the validity of that experiment.
Keep putting yourself forward to defend the poor, misjudged car company belonging to a crazy asshole.
They obviously pre-cut the wall, probably for safety reasons, and they were like, let's make it a silly cartoon impact hole while we're at it.
Good job.
Only yesterday, I searched for a very simple figure, the number of public service agents in a specific administrative region. This is, obviously, public information. There is a government site where you can get it. However I didn't know the exact site, so I searched for it on Google.
Of course, AI summary shows up first, and gives me a confident answer, accurately mirroring my exact request. However the number seems way too low to me, so I go check the first actual search result, the aforementioned official site. Google's shitty assistant took a sentence about a subgroup of agents, and presented it as the total. The real number was clearly given before, and was about 4 times that.
This is just a tidbit of information any human with the source would have identified in a second. How the hell are we supposed to trust AI for complex stuff after that?
Don't worry too much, it's not even part of his actual brain. It's a bunch of random brain cells grown from a DNA sample.
If we could make new conscious lifeforms from this, Blade Runner would be a documentary already.