I've often had the same thought coming from the other direction, as an English speaker learning Dutch for the past couple of years: I hear many little echoes in Dutch of archaic or poetic English forms.
Thanks for looking that up! It makes sense, of course - the line starts to drop in 1984, with the release of the Macintosh, and hits a trough around the launch of Windows 95.
It's not a term I recall hearing at all when I started using computers in the mid-'80s - all that mattered back then was "shiny new GUI, or the clunky old thing?" I really thought it was a retroneologism when I first heard it, maybe twenty years ago.
It seems to me rather less likely that someone at Microsoft knowingly and deliberately took his specific diagram and "ran it through an AI image generator" than that someone asked an AI image generator to produce a diagram with a similar concept, and it responded with a chunk of mostly-memorized data, which the operator believed to be a novel creation. How many such diagrams were there likely to have been, in the training set? Is overfitting really so unlikely?
The author of the Microsoft article most likely failed to credit or link back to his original diagram because they had no idea it existed.
What difference does that make in solving the actual problem? The real story here is not "some lousy Microsoft employee ripped off this guy's graphic", but "people using AI image generators may receive near-copies of existing media instead of new content, with no indication that this has happened".
If this has been discovered once, it must be happening every day. What can we do about that? Perhaps image generators need to build in something like a Tineye search to validate the novelty of their output before returning it.
> "people using AI image generators may receive near-copies of existing media instead of new content, with no indication that this has happened".
This has been known for a long time. The main question is how rare something is in the input data, if you're lucky you get substantial chunks of the original input back out.
Clearly, but OP would be well advised to apply Hanlon's razor. The victimhood narrative does not improve understanding, which is necessary to work for better outcomes.
Right, I know he existed. But what is he doing in this article? I'm loath to cry "LLM!" but this seems like a really weird error for a human to make. Sort of like getting Babe Ruth, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the Lindbergh Baby confused in your head.
Could just be sloppy writing. The first instance that grabbed me was "The Julian Date simply counts the number of days from an arbitrary remote reference point", it's not arbitrary, it was chosen specifically because three major time cycles, solar, lunar, and the other one, all coincide at that point.
Of course the jobs are located where housing is expensive: the housing is expensive because that's where the jobs are.
There's a whole lotta land suitable for housing in the places where those jobs are, too, but most of it is locked up in restrictive zoning which prohibits development at a sufficient density to keep up with demand.
> if everyone did the super hard thing in the past
I'd settle for the present - or the near future - or at all, ever, really, in place of the "let's just drive this bus off the cliff at full speed and hope our children learn to fly in midair" policy we've been implicitly choosing.
Solar is the cheapest source of electricity now and we've got grid scale batteries that are economical. The solution is here.
Climate change is too. It's time to stop worrying and hoping drastic prevention plans are going to work because it's already happened. The world is going to change and people are going to have to change with it (and move, mostly).
I'm not sure we should just ignore that the way we are handing this is to put all the costs onto the poor and powerless, while letting the rich and powerful become ever richer and more powerful. Turning that upside down would absolutely help a lot of people. More people should be furious about this.
reply