Dunge

But if you had to pick a favourite…?

Yes, I’d concur with that. And I’d agree that it would cost jobs if they were “pure coding” jobs. But I think about where I work and its implications there - if they didn’t have people around who could apply it, understand it, test it and manage it there could be disaster. I can see there being new skills in people interpreting a project into an AI request and then management of that.

I haven’t personally but I know of it and internal analysis of it. I was more wondering whether there was a particular form of AI that you were considering, more than ChatGPT.

Regarding Crypto, I don’t see that it’s like gold. Gold is a commodity, it has an inherent value and use to people. Its inert nature, relative rarity and desirability makes it an object of value across cultures. If someone tomorrow decided the value of gold was zero, it would come back up again precisely because it’s something tangible to represent value. Crypto represents value but it isn’t tangible. If it was decided tomorrow that a given Crypto currency had a value of zero then there’s no reason it should recover because it has no inherent value beyond generally accepted confidence. What that link is describing, for me, is more of a hybrid - looking to utilise some of the technological developments that have come from Crypto, without necessarily using Crypto currencies themselves. But the fact remains that if the banking system builds a reliance on Crypto without having control over it then we’ll just end up with another banking crisis like the late 2000’s where the banks, regulators and populace all allowed a system that they didn’t understand to get out of control. Combine that with AI and all I can see is an accident waiting to happen unless they properly limit it.

What should I Google then?

See, I just don’t believe that. So a system designer sticks something into a prompt for even a complex AI - the result is only going to be as good as the request. It’s going to be full of flaws, and worse than that potential security risks. It’s all well and good for creating a model off a shelf, but how often does that happen in the business? A lot of managers want something and don’t even know what it is. And are they going to be held liable in court if they fall foul of something like GDPR because their AI system is full of holes? I can see it cutting down the number of people needed in a tech team, and indeed getting projects completed quicker. But there will still be a need for several people with different expertise - including people who can interpret and test the logic of the code that’s been produced because it will still be that company that gets sued when things go t*ts up - to go through a project. AI is a tool. It can bring great advantages of speed, but it can’t tell you what you want in the first place. That’s how I see it anyway. Maybe it’ll prove me wrong but I reckon anyone who thinks they can chop nearly their entire workforce and just rely on AI is in for a big shock. PS. As for Crypto, don’t get me started on that. The whole thing’s a lie.

One area that I would really want to see heavy regulation is in creativity and the arts. The need for a human playground in a hypothetical AI world will be more important than ever, and that’s a place where rich moguls could cheap people out. (I really hope the Hollywood writers win.) Fortunately the Uncanny Valley effect is still very much in operation.

I’m not so convinced on the overarching impact of AI myself. There are plenty of opportunities where processes can be automated, but ultimately the logic, the spec, of what someone needs to do will surely have to remain in the hands of a human? The idea of AI writing code for us has massive possibilities in principle, but in practice it will still need humans to design it, surely? What I can see is applications that enable people to design what they want in a very user-friendly way and then have that application do the coding for them. But in terms of creativity and confirming a spec, these will surely have to remain in the human realm?

It’s always curious to me in this that Elon Musk is the voice of caution. I expect it to be the other way around.

No E for me please, I’m Scottish.

He thought he had. He said he’d renew Trident. The whole point of people on the hard wings of politics is that they represent a form of philosophical purity. The very thought of compromise is anathema to them. It’s why Peter Hitchens was once hard left and is now hard right. He fell out with his peers but wanted to keep the purity.

Took me a while to even realise how that could be the answer!

They already think the M&S advert as a whole is falling foul of being too woke and not traditional enough, so they’ll likely just be enjoying it receiving a kicking from its “own side”.

I’m also thinking it might be gaps or holes in something.

I’d say two things here: 1. You’re never going to get a definitive answer to many of these questions because there will never be an equivalent “what if” - as people have said, the UK is different to Sweden, which is different to New Zealand, which is different to Brazil. Just because a tactic was deemed to work well somewhere doesn’t mean it would work somewhere else, or even that that somewhere else was therefore wrong with their tactics. We can infer and guide from what the inquiry finds but there will never be definite evidence. 2. Even if there was, it will be of limited value regardless because the next pandemic will be different in some way. Maybe it’ll be spread exclusively by touch, in which case we’d need a completely different strategy. Ultimately understanding the psychological reaction of the populace plays a part in the success of these strategies at any given time as well. Frankly the whole inquiry feels like little more than a window of curiosity in the past. There will be things we can learn but I think the level to which it will positively inform future decisions is limited.

I was wondering just the other day whether the anti-vaxxers now go “hands up, we were wrong” or whether they convince themselves that their movement saved everyone from having 5G chips implanted in them by shining a light on it.

I think it’s true that the worst people have a captive audience online, or at least people who wade in and see their past comment as if it’s fresh and react to it that way. Everything’s fresh and sharp. We can’t really handle social media well as a species. It may be unpopular to say but I do wonder whether some of the more autocratic countries in the world have a point in locking it down more, albeit for more nefarious reasons.

I don’t think people enjoy it, other than trolls. It’s more that people let go far more online than they do in person and then other people feel they can’t let that opinion go unchallenged.

Hamza’s actions have muddied things in the sense that now it does have a direct tie-in to Leicester City discussion - I expect exactly what Leicester City itself wanted to avoid. But this is such a sharp issue that pretty much any opinion could result in other readers not just disagreeing with you but utterly hating you for it. I can totally understand why the mods don’t want it discussed on this forum. Frankly, this thread itself is probably too much and won’t last long. In the meantime, I’d advise anyone who is asking the same question as the OP to read Finnegan’s reply above.

The episode of The Detectives where they had to name the endings of every club in the football league is forever etched in my memory.

Monty Python was basically zany, so on reflection I think it’s aged fine. It was never everyone’s cup of tea back then, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea now but it’s still funny for those who like that sort of thing. I find it very hit and miss (Life of Brian being the biggest hit) but then it always was so. Sticking with John Cleese, Fawlty Towers would be an interesting discussion. Funnily enough it feels like it works now as a snapshot of the seventies, although the racial humour wouldn’t be done that way these days. But as always, the point remains that you’re laughing at the less sympathetic of the characters rather than with them. It’s a cruel comedy in that way, but built up well enough to show how they deserve it.

She’s clearly just learning how to play the oboe.

Evans was a trash captain at West Brom and a trash captain here. Meanwhile Cody’s been talked up for his leadership abilities even while not in the first 11 and was doing the rounds with fans while his leg was in plaster. Vestergaard’s been playing well and Cody hasn’t complained. All of this is very welcome, a spirit that Rodgers drained out of the club over the course of years.

Someone has to replace him eventually, whether it be tomorrow or 20 years from now. I figure the lack of an obvious successor likely means there would be a big power scramble from numerous parties.

I don’t often follow the links on here - nothing against them, just generally it’d take up too much time. But I was curious and had an hour earlier today so I checked it out. Interesting listen. Obviously a year or so old now but still valid. What I took from it was: - Starmer’s driven by a sense of justice. Not some sort of phoney justice as proscribed by religious or cultist lunatics but more of a social justice. That being his passion really comes across. - He’s a humble man, likely coming from his upbringing. He believes in integrity and doesn’t accept praise easily. That’s both a strength and a weakness - he seems like someone who has a quiet, steely determination once something has happened rather than someone who barks loudly to chase something off. While there’s a lot to be said for the former, sometimes a bit of showmanship can get you what you want or even scare off potential evildoers a lot easier. It can also make it easier to get things done without descending into long arguments with political “frenemies”. Is he leadership material for a country like the UK? He’s probably more like a Brown or a May than a Johnson, Cameron or Blair. Not being so bombastic would be an interesting change for an actual election winner rather than a follower of another PM, but he’ll need to do better than Brown and May at galvanising his party behind him, as well as maintaining energy in the years to come. - Following on from the above, he loathes Boris Johnson. He is pretty much the antithesis of him. - I can totally understand why he’s pro-EU. (I don’t say that in anticipation that he’d necessarily look to rejoin as PM but he can still be pro-EU regardless.) He mentions a desire for international cooperation to solve problems. That’s an essentially an EU ideal. It’s a promising trait with regard to the fight against climate change. - I still find it hard to abide the patronising smug that is James O’Brien.