I’ll never understand this. A company puts in an immense amount of time money and effort into creating a product, and because it doesn’t work the way you want it to, it’s an assault on your freedom. Whaaa?!?! You can see things and ask things and learn things without using an AI company’s product, you know like, interacting with real people in the real world.
That's what they said about cars at first. Or credit cards. The question to ask is: will the world we make in the wake of this invention afford us to live without it? And if the answer is no, then it's all the more important to have access to truly free and uncensored AIs. How did we learn things before AI? We googled them. How's that working out in the age of AI? AI both poisons our search results and gets integrated with them. There's large interests in making sure everything we see hear and think is prevetted by some approved AI. That's not a future I want to live in, but the signs are there.
This is definitely a completely different thing, but for your problem, Qwen Image-Edit is a really good model that you can either download and run on your own hardware, or on an online service like civit.ai
Some good ones:
- United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster
- United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness
- South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats
I've spent a lot of time in forfeiture court and it's always a chuckle to hear these cases get called. Especially the defendants' lawyer "Yes, your honor, I represent the cats."
Always wanted the cat, or the Honda Civic or whatever to ask to represent themselves. I guess if there was a foreclosure against an Nvidia Spark with a local LLM it might be able to give it a worthy try.
This is really cool but in my experience, RA is typically used for less popular “underground” (in very large quotes) events, warehouse parties, etc. It might be different in Europe or other cities here in the states. The data for such events is interesting in its own right, but it’s probably not quite representative of the most popular clubs and/or artists.
Perhaps doing a similar thing with Ticketmaster/tixr/all the other ticket apps and combining them together could produce more representative data, of course you’d still have the problem of having to filter out actual clubs.
on an unrelated note, what in gods name is that color scheme on the visualizations? xD
We have hundreds of thousands of TIFF files where I work which are scans of questionnaires filled out by clinical trial participants. The one annoying thing is that web browsers don’t natively display them. I did some incredibly inefficient JavaScript bs to decode the pixel data, plop it in a canvas, get a PNG data url from it, and set that as the src for an img element xD (why not just display the canvas? because I was too lazy to manually handle resizes…) good times
In the hard, logically rigorous sense of the word, yes they are deterministic. Computers are deterministic machines. Everything that runs on a computer is deterministic. If that wasn’t the case, computers wouldn’t work. Of course I am considering the idealized version of a computer that is immune to environmental disturbances (a stray cosmic ray striking just the right spot and flipping a bit, somebody yanking out a RAM card, etc etc).
LLMs are computation, they are very complex, but they are deterministic. If you run one on the same device, in the same state, with exactly the same input parameters multiple times, you will always get the same result. This is the case for every possible program. Most of the time, we don’t run them with exactly the same input parameters, or we run them on different devices, or some part of the state of the system has changed between runs, which could all potentially result in a different outcome (which, incidentally, is also the case for every possible program).
If the state of the system is the same, the scheduler will execute the same way. Usually, the state of the system is different between runs. But yeah that’s why I qualified it with the hard, logically rigorous sense of the word.
I do think that might be the only thing they turn out to be any good at, and only then because software is relatively easy to test and iterate on. But does that mean writing code is what the models are "for"? They're marketed as being good for a lot more than coding.
The tool did it because this is what it was designed and trained to do --- at great expense and effort --- but somewahat less than successfully.
You can't have it both ways --- the tool can't be "intelligent" yet too stupid to understand it's own limitations.
If people ask the wrong questions, the "intelligent" response would be, "Sorry, I can't do that".
Maybe the problem here is that this "intelligent" tool is really as dumb as a rock. And it's only a matter of time until lawyers argue this point to a jury in court.
Good thing college is not about memorizing random subjects and you can choose whatever major you want that 90% of your courses are dedicated to! I’m not saying college is necessary for everybody but when you say that it’s an insult to people who have put in four years of work into learning something they’re passionate about. One can also grow in more ways than one “intelligence” through the college experience. I was a highly intelligent 18 year old but was severely lacking in my emotional maturity and self confidence which I learned a great deal through college.
