rustyspoon

I'll put my copy-paste argument here:

She believes trans women aren't women. She believes trans women are only lying in order to get close to women and rape them. JK Rowling self identifies as a a TERF, or "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist".

Rowling donates money to the LGB alliance a UK "charity" that actively lobbies against trans rights, and has fought for the continued legality of trans conversion therapy.

Rowling has tweeted out in support of one Maya Forstater, a woman who was fired and has become a martyr for intentionally misgendering trans people, and once again perpetuating the idea that trans men are rapists. Rowling keeps pushing the idea and propping up those who agree with her.

Rowling has posted to advertise for an online shop that sells, among other things, anti-trans merch. The store is ran by an Angela C. Wild, a founding member of "Get The L Out", an organization that has in its mission statement "We stand against any kind of misogynistic politics and systems that prioritise men’s interests: queer politics and transgenderism, right-wing politics, left-wing politics" etc.

Under the pen name Robert Galbraith (a name coincidentally shared by a 20th century proponent for conversion therapy), Rowling had published multiple transphobic books, writing one book about a serial killer who dresses as a woman to lure in unsuspecting victims, and another with a self insert character who is killed after "speaking out" against transsexuality.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a great video that goes into much more detail than I have here about the causes she supports and the right-wing activists and think tanks she associates with and gives money to.

Finding it hard to take this article seriously when it insinuates that we already had "fully autonomous vehicles" on the road in 2018.

My optimistic outlook is that most of the musical spaces I reside in will likely shun or be immune to whatever norms develop regarding AI. I personally care deeply about the fact that the music I listen to is made deliberately and thoughtfully by a human being, and I like to think there are many others who feel the same way.

More cynically though, I'm worried about AI taking market share away from music "made by humans". If this becomes the norm, maybe there just won't be money in doing things the old fashioned way. Maybe the type of musicians I want to listen to would be discouraged from making music in this new climate.

Why bother making something new when perfection already exists?

(kidding)

Perfect, she's just in time to see streaming services fully adopt cable tv business practices

This is like saying there are no racially discriminatory hiring practices, employers are just hiring the most qualified people (which ignores that it's harder for disenfranchised people to gain those qualifications). That is to say: people aren't arguing that this situation doesn't make sense, they're arguing that it's wrong. And it doesn't stop being wrong just because the people involved had no bad intentions.

Expect to butt heads with more and more people in the coming years if you argue by appealing to the status quo, because an increasing number of people are starting to take issue with the entire system as it stands.

This is more of a meta thing, but relevant to a lot of comments I'm seeing here. Having an opinion about pineapple on pizza is the most uninteresting cultural phenomenon. I've spent the last 4 years on dating apps, and at least 1 in 3 people write in their bio about this "issue". It's not something that people truly have strong feelings about, it's like straight men saying Ryan Reynolds is attractive, or people arguing over the definition of a sandwich. It's an opinion that people hold as a proxy for being somebody with strong opinions.

I struggle to see how any music made by people for the enjoyment of people isn't art

the core role of an engineer in many ways already is validation of a plan.

I disagree, this implies that AI are doing a lot more than they actually are. Before you design the physical layout of some thing, you have to identify a problem, and identify guidelines and empirical metrics against which you can compare your design to determine efficacy. This is half the job for engineers.

There's one step of the design process that I see current AI completing autonomously (implementation), and I view it as nontrivial to get the technology working higher up on the "V".

It's still just a tool for engineers though. Half of the job is determining what the design requirements are, another quarter is figuring out what general scheme (i.e. water vs air cooling) works best to meet those requirements. Things like this are great, but all they really do is effectively connect point A to point B in order to free up some man-hours for more high-level work.

There's a guy at this maker-space I work out of who's been using ChatGPT to do engineering work for him. There was some issue with residue being left in the parking lot on the pavement and came forward saying it had to do with "ChatGPT giving him a bad math number," whatever the hell that means. This is also not the first time he's said something like this, and its always hilarious.

And can that same person explain why social features are completely missing from the mobile app?