And what would that do, exactly? The government wouldn't care. In fact, they would probably be better off for it because everyone would simply switch to Chrome and there's one less browser to deal with. The only thing you'll do is make the problem worse and take away choice from the French people who want nothing to do with this bs.
I'm saying they update their terms to prohibit compliance with censorship (specifically defined in line with the French bill's text), not impose geo restrictions or attempt legal enforcement.
Building out censorship functionality doesn't really seem viable for Firefox's future worldwide.
I've lived in both eastern and western Europe and it's used a lot almost everywhere. As far as I can tell, the more Russian-influenced countries tend to use other services.
It's still crazy to me how people use Viber en masse in a lot of those places. The UX is abysmal and it's full of manipulative ads. Habits are hard to change.
Even worse is implying that we should replace all creative processes with AI. I honestly don't understand what world you'd like to live in. One where humans do almost nothing interesting and instead ask computers to do it? That sounds depressing.
Not the op, but perhaps to put more charitable interpretation:
- if you're going to try to solve an actual challenge, improve on something, truly consider the design and purpose and limits and compromises and propose a different approach, brilliant
- but if all you're going to do is make a random somewhat pretty twist on existing thing, without actually considering the use, the purpose, the engineering, the what's and how's and why's, then... I'm kinda with him. What value did you add,that prompt to midjourney "create a spiral piano" wouldn't have?
I do understand the sentiment. I personally see value in human creation but I sort of get why others wouldn't.
I'm somewhat shocked by this overwhelmingly positive reaction to AI replacing human creativity so I may be overreacting? It just doesn't sit right with me — trading human subtlety for raw efficiency — but to each their own.
We'll see where it shakes out when it comes to art.
Even in myself I'm finding curious emotional responses: I'm now growing less interested in some of the more synthesized / formulaic types of music, and more interested in live performances / recording with real instruments. For visual art that is art, that to me usually needs some human emotion, message, story, path. For "art" that is placeholder or functional, yeah a lot of that may get replaced by AI.
My point to this particular article is though, if their sum contribution to the world is the analogue of:
1. Short one-sentence prompt to AI that's basically "piano, but tear-shaped"
2. 37 paragraphs of self-aggrandizing meaningless prose that actively deceives on the accomplishment and status of the thing
Then it's not "human creativity" as far as I'm concerned, or at least not one that I want to actively encourage (and in fact, as I mentioned, I want to actively discourage / not partake in).
In other words, I'm not saying AI should be doing the kind of things exemplified in that article rather than humans. I'm saying I don't want to see / partake those kinds of things [if not quite "they shouldn't exist":], and it's partially because they don't contribute any human creativity, as far as I'm concerned. That's very different from "not seeing value in human creativity", so I think we may have misunderstood each other there?
I find myself feeling some of the same things you describe. I don't really relate with the synth/formulaic music part, to me that's just another interesting form of human expression. But I guess that just goes to show how we all see the line in very different places; I think even my own opinions on this are sometimes inconsistent with each other.
But you're right, we probably misunderstood each other there. You definitely won the argument though :)
It doesn’t replace it, humans can always do art for self enrichment and fulfillment, just like the vast majority of artists were doing before image AI hit the scene, including the vast majority that thought they could exchange time for food and shelter this way and did not.
Creativity has nothing to do with professional aspiration and entertaining the humans for transactions.
It responds to the comment "I only clicked on the article because I thought it was the age of the samples too." Age is "The length of time that a person or thing has existed." AD and BC are both absolute values from a zero point, both positive ("1 BC is year 0, 45 BC is year −44" [0]). A relative chronological dating by some phenomenological method such as radiocarbon or thermolumenescence might establish a negative date relative to some other known benchmark [1].
How might something dated from the future be found? I'm not certain, but maybe it has to do with aliens that are all the rage nowadays.
If I were 12 years old, I would have been born 12 years ago.
2023
- 12
----
2011
If I were -12 years old, I would be born 12 years from now.
I'm finding that I also empathize with what you guys are experiencing, but I never thought to call it a daydream. I guess I have a very fuzzy definition, now that I think about it.
The GP is referencing cases where inference can't figure out what the T is in Option::<T>::None. This can happen in the body of a closure without an explicit return type, for example. To solve it you have to specify the type either earlier in a place that helps inference (in the example, add a return type) or in the expression, like None::<()>.
I think it's exactly the same issue as null in Lisp and Lua — you sometimes want to differentiate between null as in "I returned no value", and null as in "I returned the fact that there is no value". Or null vs false vs empty list in the context of Lisp.
This distinction becomes very clear (and sometimes very annoying) when you realize that in Lua, setting a table key to null completely removes it, so there's no way to store the concept of a missing value unless you define a special value (like DBNull). A slot being null literally signifies its absence.
There is no difference between "no value" and "the fact that there is no value". "The fact that" is just rhetorical verbiage.
There is an ambiguity in a polymorphic container between a present entry indicating a null value, and a null return indicating there is no entry.
E.g. hash table being used to represent global variables. We'd like to diagnose it when a nonexistent variable is accessed, while allowing access to variables that exist, but have a null value.
This is because the variables are polymorphic and can hold anything.
When we are dealing with a typed situation (all entries are expected to be of a certain type, and null is not a member of that type's domain) then there is no ambiguity: if a null appears in the search for a value that must be a string, it doesn't matter whether "not found" is being represented by an explicit entry with a null value, or absence of an entry.
This rhetorical verbiage matters a lot in a language like Lua where you can pack an array full of dbnull sentinel types but filling it with nil results in an empty array.
I don't know lua. But the behavior you describe seems like a quirk of lua tables. Instead of having `table.get(key)` return a sentinel value, you can replace it with `table.has_key(key)` and `table.get(key)`.
I'm not sure about the ergonomics of the trade in lua. But in C# the ergonomics of `DBNull` are terrible. If it were just replaced with `null` everywhere, everything would just be better.
