shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.gif
Breaking news: "AI-generated poetry is indistinguishable from human-written poetry and is rated more favorably"!
Or, you know, not.
If you find yourself saying
There isn't a single good term in English for people who are post-pubertal but below the legal age of consent or majority
you may already be morally diseased.
My own final project was a parody of the IMDb that was "what if the IMDb was about books instead of movies", except that the user reviews told stories about people who turned out to have all gone to high school together before scattering around the world, and reading them in the right sequence unlocked a finale in which they reunited for a New Year's party and their world dissolved so that their author could repurpose them for other stories.
Senior year of college, I took an elective seminar on interactive fiction. For the final project, one of my classmates wrote a program that scraped a LiveJournal and converted it into a text adventure game.
"I was somewhere in the middle of your mother last night, Trebek!"
Serious data might not be available for months. For comparison, the Pew Research Center didn't come out with their numbers for the 2020 election until June 2021. Who knows? The country might burn down before next summer.
here's a matt yglesias article on the ordeal that i think is pretty even-handed
eat a dick
Not enough for the presidential race, sadly; perhaps enough to scrape by with a few Senate victories.
Those are the actors who played Duncan Idaho in the David Lynch adaptation and in the two Syfy miniseries. So, yeah, it's not wrong, just incomplete — though I have no idea why it only serves up those three. There's certainly no limitation to three images, as can be verified by searching for "Sherlock Holmes actor" or the like.
Even the AI summary is quite good
insta-block
From the Wired story:
That should be one in 20 new articles, per the story they cite, which is ultimately based on arXiv:2410.08044.
Babe wake up, a new insufferable prick just dropped.
Edit to add: There's an interesting example here of a dubious claim being laundered into truthiness. That arXiv preprint says this in the conclusion section.
But if we dig up arXiv:2402.14207, we find that the "unanimous" agreement depends upon lumping together "somewhat" and "strongly agree" on their Likert scale. Moreover, this grand claim rests upon a survey of a grand total of ten people. Ten people, we hasten to add, who agreed to the study in the first place, practically guaranteeing a response bias against those Wikipedians who find "AI" morally repugnant.