Agreed. These things are - hopefully cyclic - even if this cycle seems worse than before. But, as a regular cinema goer, what I cling to is that the good stuff is still there. Some people seem to think cinema == the latest Marvel / Disney (or whatever) but there's more to it, and we've been here before.

It's also remembering that although there's a lot of really good cinema from the 90s (or whenever) there's always been dross too: Donnie Darko, Pulp Fiction, Seven, Shawshank Redemption, etc. - the 90's were awesome and much better than now! But there's any number of crap 90s films too that have been forgotten.

Completely agree with destruction of IP: personally, the DC "reboot" is a depressing example of this. MCU seems to work: let's do the same. But not in a cohesive/good way, so let's just restart again and throw all that away. Then there's the shambles that is Star Wars 7/8/9. Not suggesting they're all terrible individually but at least have an overall plan before you start milking the cash-cow. (I know 4/5/6 have issues suggesting some level of making it up as they went along but the franchise idea was relatively novel then so it's more forgivable.)

There's also the idea that when cinema is crap (relatively speaking) TV gets better, although the idea that Netflix (etc.) sometimes push for more episodes than the story needs is an equally depressing place to be. And the whole "writing for an audience that's also on their phone" is miserable.

UK person here - so excuse any local reference... I remember reading Empire magazine a few years ago: its cover was the "summer of sequels". Superheroes, etc.

But... this was 1989. Franchises aren't new: it might feel like they squeeze everything else out - and for many cinemas that might be sadly true - but there are always enough non-generic films to go to. E.g. "H is for Hawk" was lovely, "Marty Supreme" was great, "Sinners" was stunning. Relatively recently there was "Civil War" (although possibly looking more like documentary as time passes), "The Anniversary" (similar), "Bugonia", etc.

Might also help that the local Cineworld (a multiplex chain) has dropped standard ticket prices to £5 and Imax tickets to £7, which for this family of three means it's cheaper to see a new release at the cinema than as a "home premiere" on streaming. (And, yes, I know wait another few weeks and it's the price of a single ticket.)

So, why not? "Hail Mary" - probably the weakest of everything I've mentioned here - was still pretty enjoyable in imax.

Yes, there's lots of "generic" sequel nonsense, but search out the other stuff. It's there, and if things like "Secret Agent" make money in cinemas, more stuff like that might get made.

... it's Apple Intelligence.

The current issue of Private Eye suggests Apple has also dropped an ad because it was showing an "AI" interaction with a phone that is currently not possible.

Alexa knows what day it is.

Having worked in a few financial organisations, it's possible that many of the 50% are individuals working for themselves, rather than an outsourced company providing multiple staff.

The benefit for the individual contractor is a decent daily rate (versus being permie) and not having to worry (too much) about the corporate nonsense that goes with any large organisation. The benefit for the company is the downsides for the individual: no severance, short notice to cancel contract, no holiday pay, no training, no sick pay etc. Overall the bank benefits because it's "cheaper" to use a contractor over a permie.

To be clear not suggesting fraud, just that clever - but not magic - thing looks to have done something clever. So yes, to it's impressive but not quite the simplistic view some of the headlines are suggesting.

Looks like it. Angela Collier debunks it pretty thoroughly but it's mostly output of LLM seems to be representative of what when into the LLM (so LLM was working but not in a magic way of "hey human, try this original idea that none of you have thought of", etc.).

The bit about it replicating unpublished research seems to be explainable by... the LLM actually having the document and that being overlooked by the person involved. (So no magic about Google always listening either, etc.)

I'm sure creative insightful original thought AI is - or is going to be - possible in some contexts but this isn't it. A few people in Google or funded by Google appear to be hyped about it, some that aren't are suggesting the LLM output looks like historic papers as might be expected. Google's ALM seems to give better results than others but then it has better input.

It's getting reported as an AI-scientist type breakthrough, which it doesn't seem to be. The damage here is that anyone skimming headlines will think something AI-ish has happened when it looks like it hasn't.

Full credit to Angela Collier, and see https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is AI-hyperbole and mis-reporting. LLM aggregated existing reports and summarised them, nothing more. And the reporting about unpublished paper is not true.

... feel the volume. It's difficult to measure productivity accurately, but poor management can measure time at a desk! More must be good!

Staff would hate it and feel stressed and have no personal life. Must be good for business!

If only working 90 hours/week enriched the person doing the work...

The singularity will actually be when technology becomes pointless. Have AI write your emails! Have AI read your emails! What's the point. Why not just come up with a better means of communicating and models for working?

Previously, Google developed an agent to make telephone appointments for you. Nice for the user, a misery for the poor bugger talking to an AI. Why not just make IT ubiquitous through open APIs, etc. that make this direct and simple.

Technology used to solve problems. Now it's turning into a hose of high pressure sewage that can be pointed in random directions to enrich the few at our expense. Yes, sometimes that's useful. But not always.

Having said that, I can see that multilingual subtitles generated automatically would be a big win in many case but I think our point otherwise stands. (Just to clarify, I know this is the internet, but I'm essentially agreeing with you!)

I don't think Carlsen really needs FIDE. At this point I don't think he cares if he has 47 or 48 titles. But FIDE need high profile players for sponsorship, etc., and Carlsen is still the biggest name at the moment.

There are enough 30+ age players looking at the end of their careers that a few might take up the Freestyle thing with Carlsen, and never player FIDE competitions again. Nakamura has suggested he's been close to retiring and a couple of breakaway competitions with sponsorship and decent prize money might be enough for him to play out. There are a few others that might think their chances of getting to play a FIDE world championship match in classical time control might be dwindling too.

Carlsen isn't playing championship matches because he wants the format to evolve and FIDE is resistant. How this progresses through 2025 could be interesting.

An effective response would be to stop using Facebook/Meta. If you don't see the ads in the first place then they have no business model.

If enough people did the same they'd change. (And I'm not hypocrite: I had a Facebook account but closed it completely several years ago. It's possible to live without it.)

But he'd have still have to avoid illegal double shunting having used the District line. Are you suggesting that we assume the revised Taylor-Fischel 1985 rules apply?

That's more of a risk on the Northern Line, but he should be safe on the District.

Reading this I can't help thinking the singularity will actually be when AIs are reading emails/documents, and then sending other AIs emails/documents. What's the point

At least if this is Google they'll kill it after two years when they get bored and try something else. In the meantime let's remember that a lot of AI products will be pushed by companies whose profit is coming from ad sales. They could be aiming to make life easier, or could finding new ways to spam adverts and sell personal data.

I know this is the internet and it should just be random contradiction and elevated antagonism, but yes, yes you can.

I think that's probably what they were going for, and it's a reasonable impression to have, certainly.