Corvos
7d ago
My proposal is to go back to PS2 graphics for use as art direction, then let AI handle the full render. Maybe conditioning it on the concept art too somehow.
The small client didn't set a limit because another salesman/contractor set it up for them without a limit. They are not technical people.
That seems to represent severe negligence on the part of the person who set it up, with foreseeable consequences. The limits are AFAIK turned on by default so the salesman must have turned them off. There's a decent chance they could get their money back in the courts IMO. Especially if it was a salesman for a larger company not a contractor.
Corvos
7d ago
Right, but that wouldn't fly for me. His Sikhness is directly related to the relative leniency of his sentence. Our society bends over to accomodate the Digwa's of the world whilst when Keir Starmer needs white rioters and people who say racially inflammatory things on Twitter to disappear, they disappear into extremely punitive jail sentences with magnificent speed.
Corvos
7d ago
Of course, go ahead, and thanks for being open. FWIW I read the judge's comments directly.
Corvos
8d ago
It is weird to think back to the time when bringing out a 4k token model was a massive deal. You could hold, like, paragraphs in context. Like, nearly a whole chapter of an actual book.
Corvos
8d ago
And because they allow brute-forcing problems in ways that weren't possible before, or tackling new problems. Or because the user cocks up, as in the case where they fail to notice their two bots getting into an infinite loop.
A token is broadly a word. 'Tokenisation' is what happens because AI is fundamentally mathematical, and so it only works on numbers, so we have to turn language into numbers.
So if a line of code looks like:
def my_function(my_variable):
Then that's
def| |my|_|function|(|my|_|variable|)|:
where each | is a split between tokens.
So that line is 11 tokens: one for each common word, one for each element of punctuation. In practice there's a big table with each word and each punctuation assigned to different numbers, and it looks up the numbers, so that line of code gets turned into the numbers (tokens)
234 756 32423 56 789789 2334 54 56747 35423 2354 213
and each of those numbers costs a certain amount to process. Each new token, i.e. each new word and punctuation mark it produces costs another (considerably larger) amount. There's a certain amount of complexity around how to represent numbers for maths, and some fairly commonsense rules about how to split up words that are uncommon, so "unfireable" might become the three tokens for un|fire|able and "garbleflarg" might have to be spelled out letter by letter with each letter being a separate token.
(Note: this is how the little guys like me do it. Tokenisation for Anthropic might be something much more advanced.)
How much a token is worth depends on what it's doing for the customer. If it's a word in my romance novel then it's priceless not worth much, if it's a word in the code for my startup, it's either worthless or very valuable depending on how that startup turns out. Or if you like you can decide it's worth what it would cost to get a suitable skilled human to do it, which is generally how the big companies value it.
As far as I can tell it wouldn't be covered under religious allowances (which is presumably why efforts were made to hide it), so that detail is most likely irrelevant.
It was covered, the refutation is a lie put around by Redditors. If you read the judge's closing statements, he makes it clear that both knives are kirpans and that Digwa was permitted it because of the religious exemption. Usually Sikhs wear one small one, but he was part of a group that wears an additional massive sharp one and this is permitted.
Digwa specifically got a reduction in his sentence because, as a Sikh, it was legal for him to have the murder weapon. For a normal UK citizen that would be considered a serious aggravating factor and result in an extended sentence.
Corvos
8d ago
Is the Irish economy that bad? I thought they were still doing pretty decently in the context of EU countries, albeit with an American leash and collar.
Corvos
9d ago
Who was talking about time machines? You were saying ‘if you’d a low income and lots of free time to make art then go on the dole’ and I was saying that the system doesn’t work like that.
Re: FIRE, you life and mine are different. Even if I paid no tax and had no expenses, it would take considerably more than a decade to get that kind of money.
But that’s not the problem. The problem is that it renders you completely vulnerable, especially now that you’ve also driven yourself to zero net worth to be eligible. Even the people who don’t like their jobs know that going on the dole or claiming disability benefits as a middle class professional will be a door you can never reopen and that obviously affects their decision making.
Again, you seem to be gesturing towards ‘people say they want A but when pressed they don’t take A~ (which is a really shit version of A) so they can’t really mean what they’re saying’.
Corvos
9d ago
That's how you do it in the UK too. But I don't think it's trivial, especially if your life history is incompatible. Degree + good job for ten years suggests an ability to live in society, unless you can cite being assaulted or raped or some other trauma. Someone from the underclass who's perfectly able to work if they want to but is belligerent/anxious and has a history of getting sacked because he/she doesn't play well with employers is much more plausible.
Corvos
9d ago
You seem to be reacting to something specific that I'm not aware of. Would you mind going into a bit more detail?
What I'm saying is that it's not a matter of people like you and me looking at zero hours of work but low living standards and opting for the alternative as revealed preference.
I'm saying that option genuinely isn't available unless you're also poor and up for committing fraud, so the lack of middle/upper class takers doesn't tell you much about its desirability.
Corvos
9d ago
True. One of the sadnesses of this decade has been realising that most of the freedoms I took for granted around technology and the internet were essentially predicated on normies not knowing about them, and the creeping realisation that something can be light-touch regulated (airsoft, remote-control planes, websites) or popular, but not both.
Corvos
9d ago
you had Farage implying that multiple times through the campaign
I don't think that's fair. There were noises around "we should be getting in the best from around the world, not literally any rando from Eastern Europe" but going from that to infinity Africans and especially infinity low-paid Africans seems a stretch.
Corvos
9d ago
It also implies some level of evenness and length. Digwa was armed with a massive knife; Nowak was unarmed, and Digwa killed him with a single lethal blow. Nothing about that says "fight" to me. That's just a straight up killing, bordering on execution of an unarmed man.
The essence of populism is that it is popular because it takes the stated concerns of people seriously rather than airily dismissing them.
The centrist trap @Corvos is referring to is to attempt to dismiss inchoate anger by pointing to a non-existent scapegoat.
I have no idea what you are talking about here, but thank you for providing a perfect example of the type.
Corvos
9d ago
You can’t do that, at least in the UK.
You need to provide evidence that you are working full time to apply for jobs, or they’ll cut you off. And you need to be genuinely poor or they’ll tell you to live off your savings.
After all, what comes after reclaiming your lands if not seizing theirs in kind?
This does seem to be have been the reaction of the Africans and Arabs to colonisation, who as always are very clear-eyed about how they see other civilisations.
In general you seem to be going off on a weird tangent. My point is that it is the constant murders of white people by ethnic minorities that is radicalising whites against ethnic minorities, not the Twitter algorithm.
Because it’s a mental trap I see friends and family who think of themselves at centrists fall into a lot.
Something along the lines of:
- Most centrists are people who are reasonably comfortable with how things are, which is why they avoid radical politics.
- But they see that lots of other people are upset. How can this be? Intellectually, they can read the arguments/complaints but viscerally they don’t feel them and it doesn’t make sense to them.
- They therefore get deflected to an argument that does make sense to them. This is usually either economic (‘people scapegoat minorities when they’re feeling precarious’ is a common one) or media (‘social media presents a biased view of the world so they can’t see the truth that actually the important things are all fine’).
- These explanations are particularly useful because they suggest it’s possible to fix the angry people’s problems without doing anything scary. All we have to do is improve the economy using the tried and tested methods the populists dislike, such as raising immigration in a Boriswave or lowering taxes, and/or regulate social media to show the true (and centrist-friendly) state of affairs at which point they will slowly realise they were wrong.
In short, blaming the discourse for popular upset flatters centrist sensibilities/*, gives an excuse for authoritarian action to silence the scary people before they ruin everything, and best of all it’s sometimes correct. So it’s very alluring.
* like all of us, centrists are only human
Perhaps a misleading phrasing I admit.
Corvos
10d ago
Which British party would you have voted for in the 2019 general election, in order to achieve this goal?
Corvos
10d ago
Twitter delenda est.
With respect, I think you are falling into the centrist trap. Twitter isn't radicalising people. All the horrible murders are radicalising people. Twitter is merely declining to censor them afterwards.
I realize that saying 2. automatically places me in the Leftist Shill category, and I don’t like that the discourse is so poisoned.
Again, it's not about the discourse, it's about the horrible murders. I don't think you're a leftist shill but I think you are okay, fundamentally, with this kind of thing happening. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't fix it if you could snap your fingers and magically prevent all horrible murders, but ultimately you seem to prefer all the horrible murders to any of the things that would prevent the horrible murders.
If "calling for calm" means "calmly discussing how we are going to begin repatriating these people" then that's fair enough, but otherwise "it's good that politicians are calling for calm" does absolutely translate to "I want you to sit down and do nothing". That's not a discourse thing. That's a basic divergence of political preferences.
Corvos
10d ago
I think part of the definition of art is that it's not done for money or status, but rather it's genuine self-expression.
As good a definition as any, but it’s not mine and I don’t make that distinction. Indeed, I think the increasing tendency to force a distinction between ‘art’ and ‘entertainment / media’, rather than between ‘high-status/cultured art’ and ‘popular art’ has been leading people astray. My sympathies have always been with the jobbing writer and I’ve never had much use for self-expression except as a tool. I just want to make nice things that people like.
Business owners can have political beliefs without being noxious about them. Refusing to patronise a restaurant because the owner didn’t put the correct BLM/whatever flag on their Twitter bio is one thing, refusing to visit one that has a massive tribal flag on the wall and makes a big deal out of raising funds for something you dislike seems entirely acceptable.
More options
Context Copy link