By measuring how it does with real images vs generated ones to start. The goal would be to show a method to reliably detect ai images. Gotta prove that it works.
By measuring how it does with real images vs generated ones to start. The goal would be to show a method to reliably detect ai images. Gotta prove that it works.
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone is working on that as a PhD thesis right now.
deleted by creator
I’ve no significant opinion of India beyond anti-Modi, and that’s a product of John Oliver. Most of my engineering team are Indian and some I like, some I tolerate. And a fear of Indian traffic by reputation alone.
But you could swap “American” with “Indian” in that first paragraph, change nothing else, and it be largely (if not entirely) accurate.
My grandmother was the county coroner for a while. She was a pharmacist professionally. In those places, it’s more “give it a quick kick and say they’re dead” (she never did that) more than anything else. She only declared death, not attribute cause to my knowledge.
The other part of it is that, for whatever reason, in my county the only higher arresting authority than the sheriff was the coroner. It was her job to serve him with papers when he was being sued and, not that it ever came up, arrest him when it needed done.
Weird system.
This is my line for biting the bullet and switching to Linux. I hope gaming gets to where I want it to be (braindead easy for anyone with ‘actually’ on their lips)
Absolutely. I’ll poke my head in there when there’s someone on insta who I’m curious to see if they get naked on Twitter. And that’s 100% of my interaction.
When I was taking classes on similar things, ‘human performance’ was generally defined as how well an expert in a given task performed.
These. Also, random celebrity factoids (height, married, dead, etc), how long to get to some town you’ve never heard of, basic math that I’m too lazy to do myself.
Sometimes making it meow to confuse my cat.
A little bit of everyone? Watchers create demand for creators, which creates demand for hosts. If any link in this chain breaks, then the little ecosystem dies.
Though that’s both difficult and reductive. Punishing hosts drives watchers to shadier hosts, with creators following. Punishing creators just creates space for other creators to fill the gap with unpredictable content (be it more of the same, better, worse, or other). Punishing watchers is resource intensive to do well, so the focus has to be on the really bad stuff to get anything done. And conjures articles like these when done poorly.
I imagine the mental gymnastics are way easier if you’re uninformed about how things work.
Does it qualify as bad faith if I ask my previous questions knowing that he had nothing and/or complete unhinged nonsense?
Fair, I intended that more as an idiom really. I mean whether or not the punishment goes through. He’s so damned slippery I’m not taking anything as truth until the buildings have been seized/ he’s in jail.
But yeah, they did make up their minds there.
Is this not the point of a trial? To ascertain fact and adjudicate appropriately? Hell, this is explicitly the point of a grand jury, to determine if a trial is merited in the first place. And they’ve found, several times, that taking the charges to trial is justified. Not even that he’s guilty, but that it’s worth looking into.
Additionally, what facts am I missing? He wasn’t exactly subtle with seeking to commit crimes (“Only stupid people pay taxes” comes to mind as a softball, but the fact that he was never held to the emoluments clause also stands out. Plus all the fraud and rape). Where is the misunderstanding in all this? He was found to be a rapist by a judge. He was found to have committed fraud by a different judge.
Yes, holding a person accountable for their crimes (maybe, jury is still out) is attacking them…
Unless you’re talking media coverage. Cause we all know that the media is an arm of the government…
My brain despises econ and I always struggle with it. But that first paragraph smells like “MBAs cooked up a justification for why they don’t pay taxes that doesn’t actually make any sense”.
The second bit makes me wonder “why don’t we have some authority on evaluating the worth of CEOs?”. Insert joke here about that worth being 0. And then I remember that the CEOs are the ones that would have to pay the government to make that rule.
A little bit. He doesn’t strike me as the type to keep the quiet part quiet.
Many thanks.
I’m ill informed on this one. Do you have a source you like?
I was under the impression that if it were made legal, it would make more difficult criminal behavior. Sunshine being a disinfectant and all that. Plus being less dangerous for any given sex worker.
It’s an issue with the machine learning technique, not the specific model. The hypothetical thesis would be how to use this knowledge in general.
Why are you so agitated by my off hand comment?