anjc

7 ms·

1.
by anjc 4mo ago
Your litmus test isn't correct and your assumption of personalisation isn't correct either. All of the criteria that you see as fine are controlled under the relevant legislation and are considered personalisation, requiring trans
2.
by anjc 1y ago
Yeah in any case they're great pics. Will definitely try the flocking suggestion.
3.
by anjc 1y ago
Nice video. Same exposure/stacking/filtering/conditions in the before and afters? Cave nebula shows a big difference in results
4.
by anjc 1y ago
Gemini gives instant, adaptive, expert solutions to an esoteric and complex problem, and commenters here are still likening LLMs to junior coders. Glad to see the author acknowledges their usefulness and limitations so far.
5.
by anjc 1y ago
Yes I agree, I don't think that it's good at all. It's just fascinating to me that people are criticising current LLMs using information they heard about LLMs 3 years ago, when right in front of their eyes are sci-fi-like res
6.
by anjc 1y ago
It seems that people can't grasp the exponential rate of developments here. They're stuck in the GPT2 LLM narrative. Even with the amazing Veo 3 videos this week, people are still nitpicking and seemingly unable to remember the st
7.
by anjc 2y ago
I did just mean AI and Computer Science per OP. By "head of steam" I mean to say that much research is built on it, think the likes of "Attention is All you Need". There isn't quite an equivalent of this in public p
8.
by anjc 2y ago
> Should we focus on the 3 amazing papers this year, cited by hundreds, that resulted in clear progress or should we complain that 100 papers are useless? Agree, and it seems that this is how fields naturally evolve anyway.
9.
by anjc 2y ago
Overly pessimistic, and doesn't acknowledge that heads of steam only build behind promising findings, while the deficient (or 'fraudulent') work die on the vine, published or not. In other words the system tends to work. Seco
10.
by anjc 2y ago
Seems more like a typical Chopin mazurka than a waltz
11.
by anjc 2y ago
On reflection, it depends on what was meant by 'express' in the previous post; if an expression is a constructive discussion then that may be good. If an expression is smashing things or shouting, that isn't good. Aggressive
12.
by anjc 2y ago
> Expressed anger/emotion is okay No it's not > bottled up anger/emotion is not good Yes it is It is tautologically obvious why expressing anger does not result in reduced anger in the long term, and why practicing subd
13.
by anjc 2y ago
Great idea. Americans are so funny.
14.
by anjc 3y ago
You're pointing out a single inconsistency and calling it a basic mistake, but are ignoring the thousands of advanced consistencies evident in the image, i.e., creativity that is beyond the ability of humans generally. Given this, the
15.
by anjc 3y ago
Would be interesting to see if the perceptive abilities of generative models are superior to human perception, when tested on optical illusions that humans are fooled by. E.g., do they correctly assess depth in a Ponzo illusion scenario
16.
by anjc 3y ago
There wasn't something that needed covering up. If he'd reported the methodology in the paper there would have been no issues. It's likely that this was omitted from the paper as an oversight; such imputation likely wouldn&#x
17.
by anjc 3y ago
This reads to me like codified psychopathy. Maybe it's profitable to assess people's insecurities or "experience caring for a dying parent" when hiring, but I wouldn't be advertising it.
18.
by anjc 3y ago
I bought one of the cheapish (€300) Super 8/8mm scanners on Amazon. It scans quite quickly while displaying the results on a small screen. It's a nice convenient device, but I can't now unsee the artifacting and compression a
19.
by anjc 3y ago
I also restored some Super 8 footage recently and had great success. The biggest win I had wasn't resolution, but slowing down the speed to be correct in DaVinci, and interpolating frames to make it 60fps using the RIFE algorithm in Fl
20.
by anjc 3y ago
> They act as if they are paid by amount of time you spend watching movies At least up until 2015 (last published paper that I'm aware of) this actually is how they optimised their recommender: "However, we have observed that
21.
by anjc 3y ago
> Computers can't read minds. They can't analyze the content of the movie and have the emotional experience that a person can No but you can read minds by proxy, via ratings, which is what the dataset consisted of.
22.
by anjc 3y ago
That's called collaborative filtering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filtering ) and is perhaps the most battle-hardened and most effective approaches in recommender systems. Even now, novel deep lear
23.
by anjc 3y ago
I have to wonder about a business model where you sell one inexpensive device and it works so well that the user never has to buy one of your products again. I'm in the same boat as others here, I bought a laser Brother about 20 years
24.
by anjc 3y ago
Tascam and Zoom still have a modern range of x-track recorders that are standalone and don't need PC.
25.
by anjc 3y ago
> That obviously P!=NP ... but your difficulty increases exponentially as n increases > I am pretty sure there is something in this problem that makes it a not legal P/NP problem It's not in the space of P and so isn't
26.
by anjc 3y ago
Is daydreaming as maladaptive as it's presented? For me it's more like scenario planning than nonsense dreaming. Even if 90% is fruitless, 10% have fed into real life decisions that have had real life outcomes. An extreme example
27.
by anjc 3y ago
Disappointed by the commentary here. Most commenters are focussed on their view of Musk's personal attributes, and think he was stupid all along, and that he had successes only through luck. Many bizarre comments seem to be able to rea
28.
by anjc 3y ago
> and whether or not it has been reproduced. Nothing would ever get done if this was the bar for citation. Real advancements take place on the back of fraudulent results in widely cited papers. Actually, even within papers that have frau
29.
by anjc 3y ago
> You would be forced to fix the car, or sell it to someone who will fix it, or remove the plates and deregister it, or scrap it. If you don’t do anything the police will remove the plates. > I would advice fixing the car or selling i
30.
by anjc 3y ago
It's interesting to read how many comments here underestimate the sophistication and expertise of mechanics and car thieves, and, all of the poor suggestions to overcome theft. This despite the userbase being technical. I wonder if the

More ›