"Enjoys" is not how I would describe it.
This is from The Prestige by Christopher Priest in case any one wonders. It's a good book!
It is quite hard to track down but here's it being reported by the head of modelling at P&G in 2006
https://www.hpcwire.com/2006/05/05/high_performance_potato_chips/
Lots of people seem to hate this and I do on some level get it. I'd be happy to talk about whether its a winning strategy or what alternatives there are (I'm not sure personally its the optimum form of activism)
What I would say is the evidence suggests:
Lastly, what I would say is from my own visceral reaction to the Van Gogh painting: I felt a huge and sudden feeling of cultural loss. That something of our heritage was at risk and we may lose it and initially I was angry and sad but I realised that we are routinely doing this everyday with lost species. Heritage we haven't even been able to document yet. All that is to say it maybe we have a discussion about what the best activism is and who we need to influence and how (I think we need to do better than just think we need everyone on side) but what we shouldn't do is entertain for a moment that the scale of this action isn't proportional and valid to what we face. We are hurtling towards a cliff edge and some people still have their foot on the accelerator. This is the equivalent of worrying about a vase in the boot. I want to save it too but at the moment we are endangering it more through business as usual than through some cornflour.
I won't rehash the arguments around "AI" that others are best placed to make.
My main issue is AI as a term is basically a marketing one to convince people that these tools do something they don't and its causing real harm. Its redirecting resources and attention onto a very narrow subset of tools replacing other less intensive tools. There are significant impacts to these tools (during an existential crisis around our use and consumption of energy). There are some really good targeted uses of machine learning techniques but they are being drowned out by a hype train that is determined to make the general public think that we have or are near Data from Star Trek.
Addtionally, as others have said the current state of "AI" has a very anti FOSS ethos. With big firms using and misusing their monopolies to steal, borrow and coopt data that isn't theirs to build something that contains that's data but is their copyright. Some of this data is intensely personal and sensitive and the original intent behind the sharing is not for training a model which may in certain circumstances spit out that data verbatim.
Lastly, since you use the term Luddite. Its worth actually engaging with what that movement was about. Whilst its pitched now as generic anti-technology backlash in fact it was a movement of people who saw what the priorities and choices in the new technology meant for them: the people that didn't own the technology and would get worse living and work conditions as a result. As it turned out they were almost exactly correct in thier predictions. They are indeed worth thinking about as allegory for the moment we find ourselves in. How do ordinary people want this technology to change our lives? Who do we want to control it? Given its implications for our climate needs can we afford to use it now, if so for what purposes?
Personally, I can't wait for the hype train to pop (or maybe depart?) so we can get back to rational discussions about the best uses of machine learning (and computing in general) for the betterment of all rather than the enrichment of a few.
It also, I think, centres the ability of drivers to act independently of the visual design of the infrastructure and whilst, that is possible of course, research suggests driving behaviour is more strongly determined by design than conscious choice.
Not to be too negative but begging for drivers to consider us human is so tiresome.
We already know how to nearly eliminate road death. Unbundling the modes (segregation) and treating cars as guests where that's not possible. After that treat infractions by drivers seriously. If you can't drive safely your license should be removed. No more arguing in court that you need to drive to get to work.
Hello Urbanist Hive Mind,
I'm interested in designs that build on flood plains. I often seen the solution being (sacrificial) parking garages on the ground floor of flats.
It got me thinking what uses of that space have people seen that is useful from an urbanist perspective (i.e. not car parking).
What have people seen that works well? Maybe with the climate crisis we should avoid building on them at all?
This isn't uncommon in lots of physics calculations where you are working at the same scales a lot and its cumbersome to keep carrying the constants around and it adds risk of making a mistake.
Think of it as assuming you are working in a system of units where you measure all your speeds relative to the speed of light. So rather than saying the speed limit of a road is 30mph you would say its .000000045c.
Can we not use austistic as a pejorative. Thanks
Rest in Power Natenom
No mention of the massively increased fuel requirements for supersonic flight and its climate implications...
We really can't afford the aviations designs for massive growth of the sector.
Not sure how serious this comment is but these are anomalies against expected behaviour from models. These models include historical data with the addition of how we expect the changes we are making to impact it with the best knowledge we have of how the systems work.
So its not saying its surprising that Australia is hot this time of year it's saying it markedly hotter than we expect or can explain using everything we understand about the climate.