(Fun fact: After reading that tweet, I tried to prompt ChatGPT with 100s of iteration of the word "Na", and it correctly answered "Batman!". However, prompting it with hundreds of iterations of the word "a" led to some weird poetry.)
Indeed, I just run it (GPT-3.5-turbo) in a loop on increasingly long sequences of "b b b b ....", and it went off the rails somewhere around 200+ 'b's.
Or we find out that certain population groups have different blood flow patterns, which the system incorrectly identifies as proof of fakery. Or perhaps for some, it's simply not detectible even though they are real live people.
Yeah, neither deepfakes nor deepfake detectors will end epistemology. We'll need to use a multiplicity of tools, with strengths and weaknesses known and unknown, and come to a conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence knowing full well we will sometimes get it wrong.
Isn't the entire point of an NFT the fact that two users can't simultaneously possess it?
I don't know if NFTs are the ideal approach but that seems like the one critique that doesn't apply.
Depending on your situation, a set of locking adjustable dumbbells (such as these: https://powerblock.com/product/sport-series/) might be a decent middle ground between the ideal gym and just doing bodyweight exercises.
They're small enough that you can store and use them in most rooms, and in my experience, the ease with which you can add and remove weight reduced the friction of deciding whether or not to work out, which helps a lot when trying to start a consistent habit.
They're not as versatile as an actual gym, but I got a pair of these when between gyms for a couple of years, and you can do a lot with them if you're creative. (For example--instead of squats and deadlifts, which would have required far more weight than I had available, I switched to lunges and one-legged squats).
Interesting--I recognized that animation style immediately, because she's also the creator of a Unity asset library called Shapes[1], (a "...real-time vector graphics library with high-quality line drawing and infinite resolution shapes, rendered with advanced anti-aliasing techniques"),
which seems to have been used to create the video.
The first thing that comes to mind is this old episode of Radiolab I listened to years ago, "Wild Talk", about the inter-species crosstalk in the jungle, which dramatically culminates with a researcher realizing that he was being stalked by a leopard by triangulating a series of monkey alarms: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/98611...
I think that's a legitimate stance, but one way to put a silver lining on this writhing cesspool of dog-eat-dog bot-fuckery is to think of it as early-access alpha testing; ironing out exploits in the wild west before it's stable enough for the not-as-extremely-online to run something useful on.
The financial system did that already, hundreds of years ago. And it turned out that the most efficient way to iron out these bugs was through trust and regulation.
To an outsider, the entire crypocurrency world just looks like a giant exhorbitantly expensive not-invented-here syndrome recapitulating the entire early history of finance.
Did they, though? If I were to describe the finance industry, "trustworthy" and "well-regulated" would probably not be the first words I'd reach for. (EDIT: To be fair, I'm a pretty typical layman, and I might just be throwing stones at a strawman. Maybe EVIL GREEDY BANKERS are a rarity in an otherwise idyllic system, but that's not what's in the zeitgeist)
To be clear, I don't strictly disagree with your outsider interpretation, but...if it's recapitulating the history of finance at 100x speed, at a thousandth of the cost, with the end result of removing an aspect (centralization) that could plausibly considered an irreconcilable technical debt, then...I mean, I'm personally not in that world at all, but I think that smart contracts have a lot of potential, in the abstract, and I'm all for early adopters who aren't me volunteering as guinea pigs.
I genuinely think there's something novel here; I just don't know what form it will take, or how many millions of dollars we'll burn on shitcoins finding it. Like the first internet bubble--we'll have to shovel through a lot of pets.coms to find our proverbial Amazons.
[Tangentially, I'm reminded of something I read yesterday about the nonexistent technological breakthrough, Write-Only Memory:
"write-only memory: A form of computer memory into which information can be stored but never, ever retrieved, developed under government contract in 1975 by Professor Homberg T. Farnsfarfle. Farnsfarfle's original prototype, approximately one inch on each side, has so far been used to store more than 100 trillion words of surplus federal information. Farnsfarfle's critics have denounced his project as a six-million-dollar boondoggle, but his defenders point out that this excess information would have cost more than 250 billion dollars to store in conventional media."]
>> The financial system did that already, hundreds of years ago. And it turned out that the most efficient way to iron out these bugs was through trust and regulation.
>> To an outsider, the entire crypocurrency world just looks like a giant exhorbitantly expensive not-invented-here syndrome recapitulating the entire early history of finance.
> Did they, though? If I were to describe the finance industry, "trustworthy" and "well-regulated" would probably not be the first words I'd reach for. (EDIT: To be fair, I'm a pretty typical layman, and I might just be throwing stones at a strawman. Maybe EVIL GREEDY BANKERS are a rarity in an otherwise idyllic system, but that's not what's in the zeitgeist)
The GP isn't claiming that the finance industry is "trustworthy" and "well-regulated" in an absolute sense, just that the cryptocurrency world is repeating a lot of old mistakes for no good reason (making it relatively less trustworthy and well-regulated in comparison).
