The ads are so stupid too because you know absolutely no one on earth is buying some product because it is on a dugout or they named a stadium after it. "Oh I'll bank with SoFi because they payed for naming rights," Only someone in marketing would think like that. It's like they've been drinking the kool aid so long they don't know how stupid it all looks to normal people. "Kia forum, great I'll go buy a Kia!" Sorry, that isn't how any of that works. But there is so much money pumped into this marketing game that has to work right? Or else no one would do it, right? They can't all be lemmings, right? Right?
Nah, the emperor has no clothes, and everyone in that industry's job is dependent on not acknowledging that fact. Don't worry, a bunch of commenters are about to chime in and try and tell me I'm wrong, and that I will in fact go and buy that Kia because the idea was incepted in my head by the stadium rights agreement.
I've heard it explained that they don't expect direct sales, but when you need a bank and your looking at options you'll realize you've heard of sofi so it must be better than the ones you've never heard of. I don't know how that train of thought applies to things like coke ads though
You should see what people were capable of in the darkroom, let alone before all this. You could always manipulate imagery ever since there was imagery to manipulate.
The roll itself can be manipulated too. Most of the techniques used in modern photoshop are basically 1:1 carry overs of darkroom processes. Layers, dodge and burn, masking, etc.
There was a time you could take this class in highschool.
You can burn negatives. You can fake polaroids, really, just think about how a camera itself must operate and you'll see why instantly. Darkrooms used to be far more common before digital photography my Junior and High school both had them.
What makes evidence "pixel perfect?" What digital photographs don't have to involve a chain of custody? Literally the first question the defense will ask is "how did you get this picture." If you say you pulled from a security system they can just go ask for the originals. This happens all the time.
Where people are getting confused is it's almost never _one_ piece of evidence that's used to convict you; although, it may be a single piece of evidence which convinces your attourney to railroad you into a plea deal.
No obviously not. But this is silly framing because there are so many things we do because it increases the effort for bad actors to do bad things. We close and lock our doors not because it prevents break-ins, but because that is a barrier that makes breaking in more inconvenient.
We've gone from highly skilled people being able to forge some specific photos and documents using substantial time/energy/resources, to any asshole being able to generate realistic full-motion video in minutes.
I get that there is a certain type of moron who thinks that the collapse in cost of misinformation has no harm... but all you've done is announce to the world that you are a moron.
It is really not any different. People would throw a hubcap in the air and pitch it as a UFO photo and idiots would latch on to that. You could take a photo of the empire state building and use a double exposure to make it look like you were king kong. Kids were doing this sort of stuff. Stop motion home movies where you'd look like you were levitating or your head got cut off.
>When nowadays you can easily half bake something in a few hours and get it working, tailored _specifically_ to your needs.
The thing is this requires you are given liberty to actually do this yourself. Think of something like say LMS software. Every college in the country is using what either blackboard or canvas. Could they make some bespoke LMS that works great for physics 101 at State university? Absolutely. But they don't, because the course director for physics 101 does not care or have the time to muck around with LMS prototypes. They barely have time to learn how to use their paid for LMS for anything but hosting the slides and syllabus.
So on the one hand, yes, there is massive creative potential for people to roll their own tools. But this is not often met with the required time and liberty to then go on to roll their own tools. Buying off the shelf still serves the organizational need it ever did: defer the creating to "someone else" who has been anointed by marketshare as the thing to do already, so that if shit really hits the fan you can just say you did what anyone would have done in your position. Same function as management consultancy: insulating fallout from bad ideas from the people who could be fired for it and give them essentially an out where they won't get browbeaten over it.
I think our culture around work and responsibility and "free time" needs a revolution for the LLMs to take off as promised as this playdoh tool.
This is only true when you compare the PhD field degree to something like finance where you can make real money at 23 years old. If the alternative is a bs for a path where most people end up going PhD, you will be working for like $20/hr most your life. You will probably be breaking even with what the PhD stipend would have been anyhow and you aren't getting any healthcare benefits.
There is no break even point, you always come out ahead doing it yourself because your caloric burn is the same for the day whether you build the tool or AI builds the tool. Only way the AI example might avoid that is if it tells you to jump off a cliff before starting the compute run.
Nah, the emperor has no clothes, and everyone in that industry's job is dependent on not acknowledging that fact. Don't worry, a bunch of commenters are about to chime in and try and tell me I'm wrong, and that I will in fact go and buy that Kia because the idea was incepted in my head by the stadium rights agreement.
reply