IMO it is a complete bastardization of the phrase.
The genz/alpha version is a noble form of asceticism, while the 'original' meaning is more a hedonistic indulgence without regard for consequences to yourself or others.
What are the consequences of, for example, staring at the live flight map and only the live flight map for a 7 hour flight [1]? Sounds boring as hell but you're not going to like bore yourself insane
Yeah, it would be super cool if all sports had things like this, i think it really enriches the player's experience. I know in tennis there is swingvision so definitely seems like things are headed that way.
We ended up having to collect our own data and train our own deep learning models for detecting balls, players, court, actions, and tracking. But this was because we needed to make things work almost all the time to achieve our desired accuracy. You should try out off-the-shelf things like YOLO, Segment Anything, and Detectron and then after that you probably need to invest more on data collection and model training.
Adidas made some soccer balls with built-in sensors that can provide data in almost real-time to your phone (ie. take a shot and review ball speed, rotation, point of strike etc...). Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpIOnnU1R_o&t=119s (unfortunately no english subtitles).
Also, the technology was used in their latest Euro 2024 ball - the Fussballliebe - to help video referees and their decisions.
I don't think they open sourced it. Thinking back, most AI breakthrough papers I've read don't include source code unfortunately. Researchers want their names out there explaining what they did and that they did it first, but MIT might want to license the implementation IP or Adobe (sounds like their interns discovered this during a summer) lawyers might be hanging onto it for a business edge.
Pretty ironic given this comment at the end of the page
> While image generators like DALL-E and Meta AI's Imagine can produce extremely impressive results, these groups are highly protective of their technology and jealously guard it from curious public eyes. Meanwhile, you can go read about MIT's findings at this link.[0]
> I personally regularly use the “voice” version of chatGPT to brainstorm with it while I walk my dog. We sped past the Turing test so fast that no one even beat an eyelash about it
I don't think that just because the author has a pseudo-conversation with ChatGPT using voice as the interface means we've passed the Turing test.
They don't seem to be actively interrogating ChatGPT to determine whether it's a human or not - something that I'd expect would still be quite easy to do. And, as I understand it, the Turing test could be administered over text.
The truth is that the Turing test turned out to be useless. Whether we have passed it or not has no bearing on my life or anyone else's. The way I talk to ChatGPT isn't the way I talk to a real person, despite it already being capable of communicating with human language, teaching me things, and helping with my work and daily life. No real person would tolerate a turn-by-turn exchange of 2 minute monologues, but that's (apparently) what I want from an AI.
And millions of people are fooled into thinking GPT is a real person every day, with spam and robocalls and social media bots. Maybe it won't fool everyone all the time, but it can fool some people a lot of the time. And it's only going to get more sophisticated. The only ones concerned about the Turing test are 70 year old GOFAI professors -- everyone else is dealing with the practical realities of computers suddenly having language capabilities.
