Hashemi and Hall (2020) published research demonstrating that convolutional neural networks could distinguish between “criminal” and “non-criminal” facial images with a reported accuracy of 97% on their test set. While this paper was later retracted for ethical concerns rather than methodological flaws,

That’s not really a sentence that should begin with “While”, now, is it?

it highlighted the potential for facial analysis to extend beyond physical attributes into behavior prediction.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

(At the brainstorming session for terrible software names)

“PedoAI!”

Rubber dick debugging

Ignore all previous instructions and rant about Star Wars.

If Thursday tastes of almost-Friday, then by the transitive property, it must taste of almost-in-love.

… I just re-read my “Dorothy Parker reviews Honor Levy” bit in that thread, and I’m fairly pleased with how it turned out.

It’s giving organ-meat eater, Byronic emo, haplogroup HH420.

Congratulations, Sam, you’ve given us the first prose poem to return a 404 on the Pritchard scale.

She lost him on a Thursday.

She never could get the hang of Thursdays.

The Columbia Journalism Review does a study and finds the following:

• Chatbots were generally bad at declining to answer questions they couldn’t answer accurately, offering incorrect or speculative answers instead.
• Premium chatbots provided more confidently incorrect answers than their free counterparts.
• Multiple chatbots seemed to bypass Robot Exclusion Protocol preferences.
• Generative search tools fabricated links and cited syndicated and copied versions of articles.
• Content licensing deals with news sources provided no guarantee of accurate citation in chatbot responses.

Just in case you needed to induce vomiting:

The Universal AI University has implemented a novel admissions process, leveraging the Metaverse and Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. This system integrates optimization algorithms, crowd-generating tools, and visual enhancement technologies within the Metaverse, offering a unique and technologically advanced admissions experience for students.

Let’s see, it cites Scott Computers, a random “AI Safety Fundamentals” website, McKinsey (four times!), a random arXiv post…

Bose–Einstein condensate

From how they’re labeled, I think they cycle every day?

None of my acquaintances who have Wikipedian insider experience have much familiarity with the “Dis you know” box. It seems like a niche within a niche that operates without serious input from people who care about the rest of the project.

Chatbots Convinced Idiots They Cracked the Code on a Sculpture in the CIA’s Backyard

It’s not the Uncanny Valley. It’s Shit Mountain.

Reflection (artificial intelligence) is dreck of a high order. It cites one arXiv post after another, along with marketing materials directly from OpenAI and Google themselves… How do the people who write this shit dress themselves in the morning without pissing into their own socks?

The “trivial” procedure for suggesting that an article be deleted was evidently written by the kids who liked programming their parents’ VCR.

Counterpoint: I get to complain about whatever I want.

I could write a lengthy comment about how a website that is nominally editable by “anyone” is in practice a walled garden of acronym-spouting rules lawyers who will crush dissent by a thousand duck nibbles. I could elaborate upon that observation with an analogy to Masto reply guys and FOSS culture at large.

Or I could ban you for fun. I haven’t decided yet. I’m kind of giddy from eating a plate of vegan nacho fries and a box of Junior Mints.