Imagine I sell you something and you pay me in cash. The notes look authentic, but I later discover that they are conterfeits. It would be absurd to claim that your successful passing-off deception demonstrates that I don't value money at all.
If you find a counterfeit bill, you experience a loss. Imagine if instead of a counterfeit bill you got a counterfeit movie. The quality is exactly like the real deal, but it's an illegal copy. You find out after the fact. Does this affect your enjoyment of the movie? You've been bamboozled either way, but in one scenario you lose out and in another scenario the people selling the movie lose out.
Whatever the morality involved, it's an unstable norm. There can be good actors who use AI and disclose, and good actors who don't use AI and don't disclose. There are bad actors, however, who will use AI and not disclose. The entire discourse will be flooded with non-disclosers accusing each other of AI use (particularly, the bad actors will accuse everyone else of AI use, to flood the zone with shit), and there will be no way for a consumer to distinguish good from bad. Bad actors will prevail economically.
See e.g. corporate green and rainbow washing, Amazon marketplace, organic food.
I agree that the current culture of disclosure is unstable. Nevertheless, I think that there will still eventually be a mechanism to verify the degree and manner to which AI was involved in the production of art, though perhaps with very different economic scale and distribution channels. Speculating, perhaps there may be an "organic food" niche of mass media art.
I'm unreasonably fond of the numero symbol (№), although I've never quite settled on whether it should be followed immediately by the number or whether there should be a (non-breaking, potentially thin) space between them. Although it does tend to look awful in monospace fonts.
A fantastic feature, but unfortunately currently broken (as in over- rather than under-zealous) for prevention levels other than 'Low': https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509990
This is the absolute perfect encapsulation of the Linux problem and the Linux appeal:
Yes, it has the magical setting to fix all of your problems and frustrations, and yes it’s a finicky broken bitch to actually get working for your use case.
In short, he argues that Mediterranean countries must reject the northern European denigration of them as backwards, old-fashioned and workshy, and instead reclaim their cultures as vitally human and a necessary corrective to an over-focus on 'efficiency'.
> Belgium: 29°C for light physical workload, 26°C for a moderately heavy physical workload, 22°C at heavy physical workload and 18°C at very heavy physical workload
> Hungary: 31°C for sedentary and light physical work, 29°C for moderately physical work and 27°C for heavy physical work
> Latvia: Maximum working temperature for indoor work of 28°C
> Montenegro: Maximum working temperature for outdoor work of 36°C
> Slovenia: The air temperature in work areas must not exceed 28 °C
(although I don't see any obvious similarities between the countries that do and don't have such protections, but based on that list it does seem that former Yugoslav and Soviet states are overrepresented)
After reading some of that article and the one from Current Affairs in the other comment, I decided I don't have much of a taste for that genre. They may have some decent points, but it's such toxic bickering.
Plus the simple fact that, by the same logic, you can try to both-sides plain murder on the ground that the murderer wants to murder (and, again, that the undertakers and coroners and such must be kept in business). Clearly, whilst every policy will have supporters and detractors, some detractions are more worthy of consideration than others.
The point of the example is that something that would generally be judged as obviously bad often turns out to not be bad from all perspectives. The same obviously also holds for good things. But I did not intend to imply any economics. The crash investigation might uncover an issue that gets fixed and prevents future crashes, also in this sense the crash had a positive effect. The better outcome in some overall sense would probably still have been for the airplane not to crash and the families spending the money on something better than funerals.
[...] some detractions are more worthy of consideration than others.
This is probably quite hard to justify in general.
I want zero cents of my money to be wasted on climate change, I live now and I want to enjoy my life as much as possible. I do not care if the planet gets burned to a crisp in a hundred years when I am dead.
One can certainly have a different perspective and vehemently disagree, especially if you have children that will have to live through that future, but otherwise? How would you argue that this position is somehow less valid than any other?
I think back to this 2019 talk about software engineering by Jonathan Blow, entitled ”Preventing the Collapse of Civilization”, more and more often lately: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko
