Ted Chiang argues that #ChatGPT and other AI text generators essentially create blurry JPGs of all the text on the web … and covers the implications for writers.
What I like about this essay: no “Art is over” or “AI is our savior” sentiments. Just clear, lucid thinking.
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web
Me: ok, no need to completely revise the topics, readings and materials in my subject, it all worked really well last time.
Also me: hey, I think I’ll completely redesign the topics, readings and materials in my subject!
Result: I’m spending this week redesigning my subject.
TIL there's a technical name for why ideas happen in the shower: the "default mode network" is a pattern of brain activity, measurable using fMRI, that happens when we're unfocussed. When the brain goes into idle mode (reduced activity), this part of the brain actually becomes *more* active. What does the default mode network do? Research is ongoing, but part of it definitely seems to be making connections, which is associated with curiosity and creativity.
The Australian Homelessness Monitor 2022 report revealed that the rate of homelessness is increasing faster than Australia’s overall population growth.
The monthly average of people using homelessness services rose by 8% from 2017-18 to 2021-22, nearly double the increase in Australia’s population over that same period. https://www.launchhousing.org.au/ending-homelessness/research-hub/australian-homelessness-monitor-2022
“In #Finland, the number of homeless people has fallen sharply. Those affected receive a small apartment and counselling with no preconditions. 4 out of 5 people affected make their way back into a stable life. And all this is CHEAPER than accepting homelessness.”
Make sure everyone understands this — It’s costing us far too much to NOT provide housing and supports to those who are homeless.
Back at work and banging my head against a response to reviewers that has been hanging over me for far too long. Maybe this is just because I'm in a weirdly good mood, but even though we had to make huge changes to the paper and I don't think all of the reviewers' points were great, I find myself incredibly grateful to them and the editor.
Like, when you think about it, peer review is an amazing thing. A bunch of very smart people took time out of their very busy lives with no goal other than to help me make my paper better. Yes, there are MANY problems with the process -- I've spent a lot of time thinking about them, you don't need to tell me what they are -- but at its root, it's kind of miraculous, too.
Because of peer review, our paper will be much better than it was (assuming I ever manage to finish the edits lol). Even the things the reviewers got wrong have been useful, because they served to give us a sneak peek at what other readers might misunderstand and write so as to head those misunderstandings off. Present Me and Future Me are both very thankful.
Mark McElroy
Rick Eyre
Holly Cummins
Nikki Jaaay
Brent Toderian
Lauren Weinstein
Andrew Perfors