They didn’t call in an outside vet to investigate. The fucking zoo keepers are vets. The zoo keepers are telling you what happened. You can believe them or not, but it’s not accountability.

Tell me, what was the purpose of your comment? What are you trying to say?

I’m not saying that it’s a conspiracy against fireworks, but possibly a problem with the habitat, food, or something else that would cause big issues for the zoo if discovered. The fireworks were convenient. I have zero evidence for this other than the fact that a lot of zoos are complete cesspools, and so I typically don’t trust “suddenly died” followed three days later by another “suddenly died” regardless of how many fireworks were launched off.

Also, there is this line:

Roxie had access to her den but the frightening noises seem to have been too much for her.

Seems like the zoo just left a weak animal to suffer instead of taking precautions to assure that the panda was placed in a safe location. It makes me doubt that anyone was even there, and that the zookeepers returned the following day to a dead red panda and tried to cover it up.

I’m dubious. Mom dies suddenly, then baby dies suddenly after choking on it’s own vomit. Yeah, no, let’s blame the fireworks. Surely, nothing else could be the cause of Red Panda deaths at this zoo.

This guy is my fuckin’ hero. His responses to this whole thing are fucking great.

Definitely have to make sure to get “AI” in the title for maximum fear mongering.

Tuesday is going to be fucking ugly. Wednesday is going to be worse.

Link will stab Chase with something, and then all of the workplace complaints will surface.

The British philosopher R G Collingwood noticed that the painter doesn’t invent painting, and the musician doesn’t invent the musical culture in which they find themselves. And for Collingwood this served to show that no person is fully autonomous, a God-like fount of creativity; we are always to some degree recyclers and samplers and, at our best, participants in something larger than ourselves.

But this should not be taken to show that we become what we are (painters, musicians, speakers) by doing what, for example, LLMs do – ie, merely by getting trained up on large data sets. Humans aren’t trained up. We have experience. We learn.

This is what happens when people try to apply philosophy to science. They get romantic and egotistical. “Oh, humanity, will your wondrous powers of learning ever be duplicated? Not by brutish machines, I daresay. They only do what they are told and learn what is given to them.”

Ohhhh boy. Don’t fuck with the space program.

If I go to a concert and the headliner is over an hour late, I’m leaving. No fucking way I’d wait 3 hours for some tangerine colored ape to throw feces at me.

The revolution will not be televised, but the brainrot will be retweeted, liked, and followed.

Jews for Hitler ask Hitler to rethink concentration camp idea.

And a modern calculator has more computer power than the Apollo program… This is how tech works.

And then we built another one…

Yeah, but imagine owning something.

I’m not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that because AI can blend together the works of hundreds and create something unique, that it is bad?

You’ve got nothing.

That’s a matter of perspective.

Firstly, I agree with most of what you’ve said. However…

Problems arise when the AI is based on someone else’s work and you claim the output as yours. Could you have painted the image exactly the same way?

Is there anything in the world that isn’t a derivative of something else? Can you claim to have a thought that isn’t influenced by something you’ve heard, read, seen? Feeding art to AI is no different than a student walking a gallery and learning the styles of the masters. Is the AI better at it? Sure. But it’s still doing the same thing. If someone with eidetic memory paints like Picasso, are they not an artist?

To really drive home the point, if I have a friend that is an artist, like, a really good artist, and I ask them to paint something for me, say, a field with wildflowers in the snow, and they come back with something that looks just like Landscape With Snow by Van Gogh, does that mean my friend isn’t an artist? If I ask AI for that, and they come back with something like what my friend painted, how is it any different? We call them “learning” models, but we refuse to believe that they “learn”. Instead we call it “theft”.

That douche punched a sentence into a computer

The jokes write themselves, folks.