When Nestlé’s involved the answer to that question is always money.
I won’t be surprised if they start convincing some third world counties that meat is bad and to eat their products making bank while causing widespread malnourishment in the process. It would not be the first time.
When the first people where trying to invent the airplane, they where not deterred by pessimists saying “why bother? There ain’t any airports around anyway”
Not the same situation. The first aeroplanes were not substitutes for an existing technology.
For substitutes to be viable, they have to have some combination of these attributes: lower up-front cost, cheaper to use, more convenient, more performant, more reliable, and/or more durable than their competitors, from the point of view of the end user.*
So which of these apply to hydrogen vs battery-electric?
* Or have better network effects, where users directly benefit from other people using the product (not a consideration here), or be advantaged by government decree.
The same arguments were made against EV, but the infrastructure was built out nonetheless and now it's quite feasible to do cross-country trips. We know that carbon-based combustion isn't an option moving forward, I for one think it's valuable for both the risks and benefits of these emergent substitute technologies to be socialized.
Could you imagine trying to tell someone before the internet that we would run cables across the ocean to digitally connect separate continents? There's a reason the internet started as gov-funded research, and it's precisely because "market forces" are triangulating on the most profitable solution, not necessarily the most efficient one
I have never heard anything worth remembering come form trying to argue about government spending or fiscal policy by treating it like household budgeting.
It’s kind of like if people argued that a bridge construction must be unsafe because they tried to make something similar in their kids sandbox and it fell apart when it got wet.
> If their product (the app store) is genuinely better for users....
Apple doesn’t make and sell App Store. It makes and sells iPhones. And it’s not “genuinely better” and they do not dominate the market however it’s good enough that a lot of people are willing to pay a premium for that product.
The fact that they chose not to fix it does not mean it’s not a bug. It’s obvious to even a first grader that this is not how items on a circular belt should behave.
All full belts stop moving if there is nothing removing content in the Factorio universe. It's obvious to a pre-schooler that full belt that is circular stops moving too.
It's a game. It's not reality. In reality belts need to be powered. Also, in reality, you do not shoot aliens or drive large mechanical spiders. The fact that they chose to implement a game mechanic means it's a game mechanic, not a bug.
The designer didn’t sit down and go “and logically when a circular belt is full, the items should stop moving while the belts keep moving”.
The fact that it was decided to not handle this edgecase does not mean it stops being a bug, no matter how much you love the game or how strongly you want your mantra of “factorial has no bugs” to be true.
Of cause factorial has bugs, lots of them. Just look at the thousands of fixes. This is one of them, and it’s a bug that has been there from the start and will likely never get fixed, but it’s still a bug.
I’d be ok with then charging a significantly lower for a “limited bandwidth” connection. But I bought an unlimited, so they have no right to complain.
Imagine if the same principles were used in other areas. You iPhone suddenly locking up after using Facebook to much because Facebook wasn’t paying Apple for access to its users.
Honestly curious, where in the world do you live? Equating sustainable with lower quality is really odd to me and I don’t think anywhere at least in Northern Europe.
If companies are producing just to get the lowest cost, it ends up being trash. Whenever anyone aims for sustainable products it’s obvious it will come at a higher price and quality becomes essential. That’s at least wha we see in all the sustainable products here
Ridiculous. The aspect of being genetically modified or not has by itself no influence on parameters of taste. At the local supermarket, you will be hard pressed to find "lab grown GMOs" in any produce section - most of it is grown in southern Sweden using traditional high yield crops (that may taste like nothing for reasons of production).
The Swedish Food Agency[1] states that there are very few genetically modified products on the market at all.
Most of the produce in Sweden is imported. I do love my seasonal berries though, they taste great. Everything else, from tomatoes to letuce/cucumbers and other daily produce taste like nothing.
You can try to refute that but it's a fact. I've lived in the Mediterranean so i have something to compare against.
It's not normal to leave an apple on the counter and look the same after a month.
This much more clearly displays the problem with all these “this service does not exist” because even though it doesn’t show the source material it’s abundantly clear that these are just simple stitches of the training toons.
Like you get Elsa with different hair or the up grandpa in a suit.
Once you compare them to the closest examples from the training date it becomes a lot less impressive than the implied “this face is completely out of the imagination of a AI model” turns out the model just imagined someone in the training set with the hair of someone else. Quite boring.
> it’s abundantly clear that these are just simple stitches of the training toons.
That's not how GANs work in general. With a limited training set the end result may appear as if they were stitched together samples, but that's not what happens under the hood.
Interpolation videos make it obvious that it encodes visual concepts, can freely manipulate them and even crank up parameters beyond anything found in the training set, thus giving exaggerated results.
Agreed, but I also agree with OP - as a Disney fan I can pretty easily identify some of the character parts this AI has taken them from.
One of them on mine is just Helen from the incredibles head with Elsas face. I couldn’t design a cartoon character from scratch, but I could definitely make a ‘new’ cartoon character if I’m allowed to take Homer Simpson’s head and paste Goofys face on top.
given an arbitrary face, we can find its embedding in the latent space of the model. this shows that the model has the potential to generalise to real but unseen examples?
on the other hand, i suspect you might be observing a bias in the structuring of the latent space.
thispersondoesnotexist.com likely samples the latent space with a gaussian or uniform distribution, and while the latent space may contain the full spectrum of possibilities, the density of semantically meaningful embeddings may be structured around the distribution of the training set rather than a uniform or gaussian.
i'm stretching my understanding of the topic in trying to convey this.
As others have said, that's not the way a GAN should work. Regurgitating the training set is basically a failure mode that is actively avoided when the models are build and trained.
Looking at these images, and not familiar with how the underlying CG training set is made, I wonder if the original series itself has some comparatively small set of latent features - dimensions you could adjust when drawing the faces - that the model is just learning, so that newly generated faces are effectively the same thing as if one had changed whatever setting you tweak when working with the underlying tool.
I see what you mean but this is definitely not universal about stylegan and it depends on factors such as size of the training set (I'm guessing it was smaller here) and training parameters.
Honestly this seems to be common for GANs in general. Though I don't think most people have looked through CelebA. But if you are lazier, you can scroll through thispersondoesnotexist and you'll find essentially celebrities with similar characteristics to what the OP is saying. More so, you actually see better quality images the closer to a celebrity they look (you see the same thing in the tune version here). I do think ADA is typically worse than the typical StyleGAN2, but that's the tradeoff you get with a smaller sample size (worse because people are training it on smaller datasets so more memorization).
A good indicator is that when I clicked on the "more..." button, I instantly recognised copied featured (eyes, face shape, nose, hair) from The Incredibles and Frozen in 3 out of the 4 samples just mashed together.
This shouldn't be the case unless you start actively looking for it.
It's just much easier to recognise with these cartoon characters than with realistic faces as there's naturally much less variety in the training material. Also the features are simplified to a point of being easily recognisable as well.
You can. Nothing is stoping you. Just do it.