Isn't that what is promised though?
What is the benefit to automated transcription if each and every single transcription must be manually audited? Where is the cost or labor saving?
It is much easier to correct a transcription than to generate it wholesale. As well, the task of audio transcription correction has long since been commoditized because of the deployment of speech recognition on every smartphone.
Usually I would be as optimistic as you are about this, because that would be the dream (although it would be nicer for them to contribute to the project.) However, given Proton's primary use case is gaming, such an effort will almost certainly be kneecapped by Apple's historic half-hearted commitment to anything other than microtransaction-powered mobile games.
Every tenured professor is expected to have at very least one PhD student. A PhD takes on average less than 8 years and a tenure more than 20.
Though I think a more reasonable replacement rate is 10+ PhD graduates per professor. I do not think this problematic somehow, unlike what overproduction implies.
I worked in biotech / pharma for a little over a decade, a big chunk of PhD’s are doing work that doesn’t require a PhD…as in open to someone with a MS or PhD.
And then mamy jobs “require” a PhD, but I’ve seen what they do and it’s semi-mindless and very repetitive.
oi. Crazy how I really haven't checked much into Godot's community since early pandemic but the exact same names always come up causing drama.
So the official Godot twitter fell for the lowest quality troll bait to start a flame war, and in the crossfire they banned several people who were in fact not harassing staff. On top of that, a particular unoffical discord moderator fanned the flames, causing a fallout of some devs, and then others in the crossfire. The CEO basically dug his head in the sand for all this.
Did I get that right? You'd think a proper CM would know that those "callouts" rarely end well. Especially on Twitter. More reasons companies won't be open about their creative works and instead live in an ivory tower.
To be frank this is all a bit stupid and disappointing. I knew for a while that Godot's contributions can be overly hardheaded and blocked a lot of useful optimizations, so I was expecting this fork to be more of a call to have the engine focus more on iterating faster and being more performant. But alas, Twitter continues to unjustify its own existence.
It is truly indicative of the shortcomings of the supposedly enlightened Hacker News hivemind that Google - a company that has killed influential projects and sacrificed / cannibalised the integrity of it's core search product - should be condemned because it's latest AI malfunction is too 'DEI'.
Google's AI blunders are more systemic than the latest culture war. The cringe hate spewed by earlier models are just as incompetent as Gemini, these are nothing more than the flailing of a multinational who is incapable of fashioning a vision of a world they promise. These are bugs at the highest level, that are clearly poisioning every layer of Google. They are the same bugs that led to Google search shortcuts that pushed disinformation COVID.
This is a failure of rigour from the flailing of the world's self appointed organiser of knowledge. Your least favourite DEI minority has nothing to do with it. For fucks sake. Place your blame where it belongs.
>The cringe hate spewed by earlier models are just as incompetent as Gemini [...] Your least favourite DEI minority has nothing to do with it
Except unlike Tay ect. this would specifically add "of various diverse ethnicities" to each promt, so this isn't just some "bug" but an intentional decision. Do you seriously believe Google's DEI initiative is unrelated? Why ignore what they specifically say they are doing?
eg.
>moving forward, all VP+ performance reviews will include an evaluation of leadership in support of diversity, equity and inclusion. [0]
Do you really think that a DEI mandate specifies refusing to produce white faces in historical contexts? That is an extraordinary position, especially in the face of the layoffs of the ethics teams that this sort of claim would consider as collaborators for such a conspiracy. Do you really truly think that this is anything beyond the obvious naked incompetence of Google under it's current leadership?
To put it another way, this is an unsophisticated position. It is an unsophisticated to describe Google or Microsoft as Nazi organization for releasing a racist AI, so to is it an unsophisticated position to for clearly absurd "DEI" behaviour from Gemini. What both examples demonstrate are companies utterly incapble of governing this kind of system.
>Do you really think that a DEI mandate specifies refusing to produce white faces in historical contexts?
I don't think that. I do think it created a system that disallowed it by mandating perhaps slightly less ridiculous rules that are probably just as bad. That is, there is no rule "do not produce white faces in historical contexts" but there is a rule "add black or brown people to every image". This results in that they will frequently generate generate black vikings, brown Napoleons ect. Separately, Google seemingly does not allow the prompt "create an image of a white male."[0] (If reports are to be believed, which may be wrong, and I don't use Google's service here so I can't test it. Perhaps it's a 50% fail rate or something, it does seem hard to believe that they are doing this). So this taken together results in it being impossible to generate white people (or people that have light skin or whatever term) as they existed historically eg. as Vikings or people like Napoleon or a general "European king."
It seems from the rest of the post that you don't know that they truly are adding extra text to users prompts asking for diverse people in the images. That is really the case, and I will go look again to find the sources that show this.
Edit:
source 1:
>Google might have been adding ethnic diversity terms to user prompts “under-the-hood,” said [Margaret Mitchell, former co-lead of Ethical AI at Google and chief ethics scientist at AI start-up Hugging Face]. In that case, a prompt like “portrait of a chef” could become “portrait of a chef who is indigenous.” [1]
source 2:
>Google's Gemini system seems to do something similar, taking a user's image-generation prompt (the instruction, such as "make a painting of the founding fathers") and inserting terms for racial and gender diversity, such as "South Asian" or "non-binary" into the prompt before it is sent to the image-generator model.[2]
Apple chooses this level of control for the iOS store. Being told your previous version was illegal doesn't entitle you to recoup the costs of compliance.
The use of language here, such as the word "illegal", is a psychological trick. It's an intentional conflation with past behavior/the status quo with being "immoral" (as illegal implies immoral).
