frankPodmore @ frankPodmore @slrpnk.net

London-based writer. Often climbing.

---

Read more

Posts

225

Comments

1,101

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

That's what I thought. No real surprises, but fun to play with!

Ridiculous.

I'm glad the results at the locals have led to at least some MPs finding their voices. Haigh, Whittome and Trickett have all spoken out, but they're sort of the usual suspects. This guy is at least a bit new!

People also makes this argument about guns, and yet gun controls work!

You are right, of course, that if someone really wants to hurt lots of people, they will likely find a way to do it. But that's no reason not to put barriers in their way. As for 'punishing the rest of us', I'm not sure that making cars a bit lighter amounts to a punishment!

Objectively, both things are true! But I tend to think Labour is the one with the power and so they're the ones who should be changing, not the relatively powerless seven voters.

100%. Point is that if Labour had appealed to their left flank, they'd have held the seat!

Assuming we're going back far enough, antibiotics. Cure one person of the bubonic plague or tuberculosis and people will start taking you seriously.

I bet there were more than seven votes for the Greens and Lib Dems combined.

It's funny because when the stock market was doing great under Biden, Trump said it was because everyone knew he was going to win.

The BMA residents conference did pass the motion, but it won't be official policy unless it passes at the annual meeting this year:

Resident doctors working in the NHS also condemned the supreme court’s ruling on gender as having “no basis in science or medicine”. Medics at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) resident doctors conference in London passed a motion stating that “attempting to impose a rigid binary has no basis in science or medicine”. While the motion was passed at the conference it will not become BMA policy unless voted on at the union’s annual meeting later this year.

It's what the people voted for.

The only people who can quit their “pointless” jobs in the name of “moral ambition” are those who are lucky enough to not need them in the first place.

The article does say exactly that.

This is it. The temptation to slap on reciprocal tariffs is obvious but it's generally self-defeating. Much better to do things this way and free up trade elsewhere.

Her instincts are the worst. Imagine being a conservative and not being able to exploit a 'rally round the flag' moment!

Good question.

The Newer Forest.

Always makes me laugh that the 'New' Forest is getting on for a thousand years old.

Again, you've written quite a long comment, almost none of which is pertinent.

Music is not math. Some aspects of it can be expressed mathematically, yes, but that's not the same thing.

Imagining the idea 'I'd like to see an image of a lemming', which is what you've done, does require some imagination. However, the output is not art because the process used to go from your 'prompt' to the image was not a creative one. (Also, this isn't entirely pertinent, but the image output is really bad. If it had been made by a person and otherwise looked like this, I would still say that it was just ugly, bad art.)

You may well be a creative and imaginative person; I don't know you and I wouldn't want to judge! However, your image of a lemming was not the result of a creative process and so is not art.

Current AI is lacking both.

Only word wrong here is 'current'. AI will never have creativity or craftmanship. It's impossible.

You're lazy and talentless, and you like how it allows you to steal the hard work and talent of others.

That some, most or all art is partly or wholly derivative of other art is not relevant because the process used by 'AI' does not resemble the artistic process. When Shakespeare wrote Hamlet (a work derived from an older play, itself derived from an older myth which itself had been through countless retellings, variations and translations), he did not do what an LLM does, which is approximately to say: 'It's statistically likely that the phrase "to be" will be followed by the phrase "or not to be"'. Putting together statistical likelihoods is not creativity. This alone shows that AI 'art' is not creative and therefore not art at all.

Additionally, instructing a machine to make things from prompts does not require creativity. Creativity is not 'having ideas'; it's an ongoing process. When you tell an image generator to make an image, you're not asking it to create something, because it cannot do it. You're saying 'Show me the statistically likely output for this input'. Again, this statistical generator is not the same as, nor is it comparable to, the human imaginative process.