Making a note of all the “expert” commentators who seem genuinely surprised at the resistance “AI” is getting from the public and regulators. You don’t have to agree with the reasons, but they’re generally obvious with a basic analysis. Anybody surprised probably isn’t worth much as an analyst
It is partly that they do not see just how BAD the technology is, and how OBVIOUSLY on the wrong tracks it is.
I had a guy try to impress me with a long printout of an AI-observed scene, but I pointed out what was supposed to impress me was that the output was embedded in elegant English.
Nevertheless it could not reproduce the intelligence of a mere lizard or cat, which involves no language and so cannot POSSIBLY be modeled linguistically.
I resist because it is more of people doing stupid things while believing they are being smart.
(They could be smart but haven't the hint of a chance at it, in our benighted society. Only iconoclasts can be smart in the society we are plagued with.)
In case it is not obvious, human intelligence MUST have the same foundations as cat intelligence, even though language alters the nature of it tremendously. (Language makes it possible to accumulate knowledge across the generations.)
Similarly, who can explain why journalism theory does not include that it it all has to appeal to the customer, who are the advertisers: https://beige.party/@bdiss/112450971333321598
We live in a benighted culture based on a pile of bogus theories.
Topping them all BTW is "quantum physics".
(I refer to the cult metatheory of it, not the formulas, which happen to be correct, because they were discovered empirically. If you ask me, "Then how do you explain...?" then you are a victim of the cult.)
But back to journalism. If journalism "critics" from within the field were more honest, they would include the need of journals to please their customers as the foremost consideration, and then all would make since and there would be nothing to complain about.
They could simply make the recommendation that you not purchase the New York Times unless what you expect is appeal to Bergdorf-Goodman and that MSNBC has much lower standards than that.
Probably fewer newspapers would be failing if journalists had been taught proper theory, too. If they knew what their primary role in society was was to appeal to customers, and that conveying news was a means.
If what they wished to do was to convey news, rather than appeal to customers, they'd invent or go into a different, but related field. They might become Cassandras, for instance. I am a Cassandra, perhaps.
@paninid Way back when, his government's response to the big attacks in Paris was not condolences and aid, but to encourage French Jews to move to Israel. French Jewish leaders were livid and "apologies" were issued.
But let's draw conclusions: Bibi LIKES attacks on the Diaspora. They aid him politically, by increasing his support base with fresh immigrants.
@billykaren Where is the advertising value in covering that story?
Seriously, no one who writes about cable news coverage from any other angle is ACTUALLY writing about the subject. They are writing about some fantasy world. The issue is what is the advertising value of the story.
All that may be true as well. It certainly is true that Netanyahu is a thief. The man is, apart from any war crimes, A HUGE THIEF. A person who steals.
And it certainly is true that the taking of hostages is an unspeakably degenerate act. Those are two things I like to emphasize.
(Netanyahu's antipathy towards the Diaspora is merely the one matter that's actually my business and not someone else's. People often butt in where they don't belong.)
@joshourisman When justice actually has been satisfied, then I will take it more seriously. In a corrupt parliamentary system, however, I expect any crime to be easily undoable by cronies.
I decided to finish my small black ash cutting board with tung oil. It has gotten two doses so far. I think it's actually enough, but will give more doses.