Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content (allow this setting to be disabled and locked down in parental controls), then hold websites liable for willfully or negligently mislabeling. Exceptions for good faith efforts to label correctly. Maybe a special label for user generated content that holds companies a bit less liable for it.
> Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content
"have" is a bit ambiguous here. I assume you actually mean "have the government require"?
in other words, if I develop a browser, I could be fined or thrown in jail for not implementing your "default to blocking anything unlabeled" strategy?
since implementing a browser is a vast undertaking, what about if I maintained a fork of Chromium or Firefox that simply disabled that check?
we had this exact same debate 20ish years ago [0] except it was about the specter of TV piracy and file-sharing. the proposed solution was the same, though - require software that could be used for piracy to incorporate a specific check, and make it illegal to distribute software without that check. it was a terrible idea then, and remains a terrible idea now.
> Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content
This doesn't solve the case for entities not subject to this law. They can just label their content as totally safe and not have to worry about penalties.
> Exceptions for good faith efforts to label correctly. Maybe a special label for user generated content that holds companies a bit less liable for it.
The OP says there aren't many hallucinations, but I think that observation is almost impossible to verify. It relies on the person making it to have a very strong ability to notice hallucinations when they happen
Most people do not have the attention to detail to really spot inaccuracies consistently. Even when someone is very good at this normally all it takes is being overtired or stressed or distracted and the rate of misses will go way up
I trust coworkers to write good code more than I trust them to do good code review, because review is arguably a harder skill
Similarly, I think reviewing ML output is harder than creating your own things, and I think relying on them in this way is going to be disastrous until they are more trustworthy
Same experience. The "government = inefficient" propaganda has been repeated ad infinitum for decades so that now it feels like a law of nature to people. My experience is however that every large org is inefficient in its own unique way, no matter which sector.
Profit in it of itself is an inefficiency. It's a bandaid for the fundamental problems of the private sector. The fact the public sector isn't burdened by a requirement to make profit isn't a downside, it's a super power.
There might be aspects of ourselves that cannot be changed even if we desire to change them. I am a firm believer in the growth mindset, but as I get older, I see there might be limits to it because of time, energy, money, etc. constraints.
A certain amount of websites are mandatory today, like local utilities, employer chosen health insurance, etc. I have to keep Chromium around for some that don't work right with Firefox.
Yep, grew up on cartoons like Transformers, GI Joe, Thundercats, etc. Looking at them now, they are laughably bad in most respects, but they sparked our imaginations and didn't need to be sophisticated to do it.
But some of the really old (like 1940s) cartoons were very smooth and well-done. I have DVDs of old Tom & Jerry cartoons, and they are excellent.
My experience, is that the ones made in the 1970s and 1980s had crap quality.
I watched this movie, and think it very much deserved the Oscar, but the character rendering was a bit “scruffy.” The environment rendering was great, and it looks like they optimized for movement, in the characters, which was a good choice. Once I spent some time, watching, the rough rendering didn’t matter.
I had a similar experience, watching Avatar. At first, it seemed like a cartoon, but I quickly became immersed, and the fact it was rendered, didn’t matter.
I read, somewhere, that the movie is being re-rendered. I think they may have the money for that, now.
Animation quality has always been a question of budget and motivation: the shortcuts (still or partially still images, reuse of cels and whole sequences, lower frame rate and systematically repeated frames, less effort at designing intermediate poses and timing them well, badly drawn interpolations between key frames...) are always the same and always available, with modest impact from technological advances (e.g. badly drawn interpolation done by a neural network or by an IK simulation instead of an inexpensive, overworked and unskilled artist).
Crap quality is typical of cheap TV productions, e.g. Hanna-Barbera and some anime in the seventies and eighties.
> My experience, is that the ones made in the 1970s and 1980s had crap quality.
Because a lot of it turned into a marketing machine thanks to GI Joe. Cheap cartoons enabled kid oriented commercial slots to sell ad time for junk food and toys. The 80's were notorious for throwing all sorts of action figure selling ideas at the wall. Every 80's kid had some cartoon merchandise toy crap.
If the goal is sparking the imagination, these flaws are often a feature, not a bug. You have to do a little bit of work to complete the picture. That's also why the original book is almost always better than the fully rendered movie inspired by the book. No matter the budget.
You have things like Homestar Runner that were animated in Flash.
Animation tools are just part of the story-telling tools, and just because something is visually beautiful in stills (or even animated) doesn't mean that the story is well told, or the tools well used.
And often 'bad graphics' or whatever you want to call it can actually help with the story, just like low-def TV, because it covers up things that are unimportant without drawing attention to it.
yes, there's a balance to get and visual "perfection" is nothing real, even star wars had blunders and visibly lesser tricks, but the whole created a deep sense of wonder and you got along
The Star Wars trilogy wasn't great cinema, but the amount of time we spent playing with improvised light sabers and trying to move objects with the Force attests to the imaginative possibilities behind it.
it was visually ground breaking though, and there was something strange because if you look at movies of that era, a lot of attempts at space action fantasy existed, but they all looked crudely crafted and not believable. there was an alignment of talent, from VFX to audio, to music that made the whole thing hold
reply