Right. The "massive" ballot fraud MAGA keeps harping about but can never show any proof. The "fraud" that is so prevelant, even Republican states can't show it.

People won't forget how utterly delusional Republicans are. After all, they elected and are defending a pedophile.

Life has existed and indeed thrived greatly in warmer climates than this.

Depends on your definition of a warmer climate. It's not always that way.

Maybe the real end of the world, if Trump reacts badly enough.

He's already scheming with his election deniers he's installed to thwart the midterm election by seizing ballots.

And by disaster, they mean a blue wave sweeping across the country and driving out Republicans.

No, not at all. The gender pay gap is in the training data thousands of times, from online comments, studies, news articles, etc. Since AI is a dumb machine replicating what it has in its training data, it replicates that.

I'm pretty sure you can find religious believe, superstitions of all kinds, human fallacies and whatever in AI if you provide it with the right setup.

After all, women go for more decidely female-related professions such as female doctor, female surgeon, female attorney, or female director.

Of course the AI versions would get paid less.

This. No good game was ever created from a single prompt. Not to an AI, not a human development team. Every single person writing those damn "look which game my AI built from a single prompt and $x in tokens!" postings is a newbie and almost certainly has never actually shipped a single game.

Game development can be summed up as endless iterations. Every system you build, every visual you create, every sound, text, button, movement, weapon, skill, powerup needs polishing, refinement and changes. It is never, never good enough the first time.

No it is not, but it IS a very successful platform for a specific subclass of games. If I were in it for the money, I could probably AI refactor some of my earliest games and publish them on Roblox and make a quick buck. If your thing is the kind of games you played on your C64 back in 1793, then Roblox got you covered. Well, if you ignore the scams and money-grabbing.

*sigh* I wish Unity would actually complete some of their dozens half-finished sub-systems instead of constantly chasing the latest trend. It's become really, really annoying. The engine used to be really good. These days, it falls apart if you look at it the wrong way, and at least from the responses to my bug reports it's clear that fixing issues is way down on the agenda.

Maybe this is their attempt to regain grounds in the indie game market - the very market they pushed away by focussing on AAA requirements for years and ignoring the single devs and small teams. If so, I can already tell them that it won't work. We collectively laugh about all the "look what my AI built for me from a single prompt" postings on reddit, where people proudly show off some AI slop that would get them last place at a game jam.

Their AI efforts so far: Tried to build and sell their own AI tools, to a collective yawn from the audience. Built a barely-working MCP server, then deprecated it before it was even finished in order to push a CLI interface to the editor instead, which only works if it's run as the same user as the editor on the same machine. And completely ignores every single advise on workflows and good development practices you can think of.

Unity, I love your engine, I despise your management. Please return to when you were actually good and stop chasing butterflies.

Quick question: Is she wrong?

The previous post made a point, which you totally sidestepped.

I have no opinion on Sabing Hossenfelder either way, but I get the impression that physics has largely stalled over the last few decades.

So... I'm just wondering, Is she wrong?

Please note that in the text I quoted, only satellite relativistic corrections were listed, and those have nothing to do with particle physics.

"Don't forget GPS satellite relativistic corrections!"

That came from studying Special Relativity, not Particle Physics. A completely different branch of physics altogether.

I remember reading a history book about the Battle of Midway (No, I don't remember the name any more.) that mentioned that the IJN ran on Tokyo Time no matter where they were. As the fleet included transports carrying soldiers to invade Midway after "dealing" with the USN, the soldiers, mostly poorly educated peasants, were left wondering why the sun was rising at 3 AM. Now, imagine what it would be like for children who never bothered to go to school if we try year-round DST again. That's not an argument against the idea, just an observation about one of the side effects of doing so.

The target audience for this particular rule of the AI Act isn't the producers or users of AI. It is the consumers of content that might be AI generated.

And frankly, letting people know if they see AI content or not is a fair thing to ask.

Fun fact: The EU AI Act considers this. It makes a difference between "AI generated" and "AI modified".

But it's hard to put this into the type of watermarking they are using. Because if you generate a text and then change a few things here and there what you are doing is degrading the watermark. But since the watermark is probabilistic, it's hard to tell if it was a weak watermark from the start or if it was degraded.

The longer you leave the old heart in a young person, the younger it gets. That way, you don't have to go through the transplant surgery as often.

I don't think that makes the document any less your own than having a human copy editor conduct a similar review which has been done since forever.

Which is what I've been saying as well. If all you're doing is asking for suggestions to something you have already written, using AI is no different than using a human editor. It's your work. It's been written. You're just looking for advice on how to improve it.

This is completely different than people who tell AI what they want and it does all the work.