*With AI review :)

I kept up with the drama until about a week ago so what I’m saying here is the status from back then. Someone please add any new context if I’m missing any new developments:

From what it appeared, view counts dropped but ad revenue stayed the same. Even before this whole thing, YouTube pays out for ads watched (and clicked). Pay out was not dependent on raw view count for a long time, if ever.

This suspicious behavior of view count dropping but ad revenue staying the same is actually what tipped people off that the issue was adblock related. The fact that channels with a larger focus on a younger audience seeing less of a drop also helped.

Now those view counts dropping could still have an indirect, negative effect on ad revenue, if it, e.g. automatically leads to YouTube recommending their videos less prominently.

Another European here to chime in that l also learned to write capital As like that in cursive.

The rs, fs and ts don’t look like how we were taught though.

I usually just go with 1.5 because adding half/subtracting a third is way easier to do in my head, and I’m not worried about a ~10% error in casual conversation.

I’ve been to multiple museums in Japan (which is somewhat relevant because Nintendo is Japanese) that either flat out ban all photography (e.g. Ghibli Museum, Aomori Museum of Modern Art) or have some exhibits that you’re not allowed to take pictures of (e.g. Tokyo National Museum). One exhibit I wanted to take a picture of had a “no photography” sticker on it, but it was on the opposite side from where I approached so I didn’t see it, causing staff to run up to me when I pulled out my phone to point out the sign.

I’ve also heard from other tourists that “no photos” seems to be rather common there.

Btw, I’m not at all saying that they’re justified at all, just saying that there are indeed places that forbid photos for copyright reasons. In my opinion, no photo would ever match seeing the exhibits in person so it is entirely pointless to ban them. Even professional, official scans of pieces don’t come close.

You definitely bring it to the point here. “Can/Could” has two different meanings in this case (and many more generally).

Nobody can legally enter your house without permission. Vampires also additionally have a second restriction, they cannot physically enter your house without permission. A warrant removes the first restriction but not the second. A vampire policeman with a warrant can legally enter, but still not physically.

No clue. Wolfram Alpha interprets it as (10!!)!, so I assume !!! isn’t an established operator, unlike the very unintuitive !!.

Tangetially related: For the people who don’t know, I found out recently that x!! isn’t the same as (x!)! (repeated factorial), in fact, !! is a LOT less big than repeated factorial.

For example, while 30!! is 4.286 x 10^16 (so a number with 17 digits), doing 30! and then ! the result of that, would be a number with an unfathomable 10^33 digits.

n!! is its own operator called the “double factorial” and is even smaller than the regular !, because it’s the product of only the odd numbers up to n.

Edit: escape characters

Obviously I cannot speak to the story in the tweet actually happening, but I’m not so certain that this couldn’t happen for two reasons:

1. People who spend money on a cute, innocent kid’s lemonade stand are probably not stingy. After all, you’re never really getting your money’s worth there and it’s more about the (arguably) good deed.
2. Once the kid (re)acts in a way that makes it seem it is convinced the money is its, it’ll feel like stealing from a kid to ask for the change back.

And also because Animate Dead, the spell the blurb in the meme is from, reads:

Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range. Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature. The target becomes a skeleton if you chose bones or a zombie if you chose a corpse (the DM has the creature’s game statistics).

On the second part. That is only half true. Yes, there are LLMs out there that search the internet and summarize and reference some websites they find.

However, it is not rare that they add their own “info” to it, even though it’s not in the given source at all. If you use it to get sources and then read those instead, sure. But the output of the LLM itself should still be taken with a HUGE grain of salt and not be relied on at all if it’s critical, even if it puts a nice citation.

Yes but even they had some use beyond just 0 mana do nothing.

Doing stuff with Darksteel Ingot, while it can work, was always a meme and never meta.

I can believe it insofar as they might not have explicitly programmed it to do that. I’d imagine they put in something like “Make sure your output aligns with Elon Musk’s opinions.”, “Elon Musk is always objectively correct.”, etc. From there, this would be emergent, but quite predictable behavior.

That analogy doesn’t work at all because the Sow produces a finite (and rather small at that) number of piglets over a given timespan.

It’s more akin to you getting a piglet/sow elsewhere. Now your piglet/sow need is satisfied and you won’t buy anything from this farmer.

(Edit: And even then you took that piglet/sow away somewhere else, reducing supply there, which will make it more likely for this farmer to get a sale in the future.)

This would almost work already if the last panel was mirrored.

I know you’re just making a snide remark, but we’re already well on that track too.

Maybe that specific tweet was fake (or bait), but I do remember it from back then. There was a whole slew of easily misinterpreted posts on all social media around the release of the cyberpunk game and then again around the release of the anime.

(because it was trained on real people who write with those quirks)

Yes and no. Generally speaking, ML-Models are pulling towards the average and away from the extremes, meanwhile most people have weird quirks when they write. (For example my overuse of (), too many , instead of . and probably a few other things I’m unaware of)

To make a completely different example, if you average the facial features of humans in a large group (size, position, orientation, etc. of everything) you get a conventionally very attractive person. But very, very few people are actually close to that ideal. This is because the average person, meaning a random person, has a few features that stray far from this ideal. Just by the sheer number of features, there’s a high chance some will end up out of bounds.

A ML-Model will generally be punished during training for creating anything that contains such extremes, so the very human thing of being eccentric in any regards is trained away. If you’ve ever seen people generate anime-waifus with modern generative models you know exactly what I mean. Some methods can and are being deployed to try and keep/bring back those eccentricities, at least when asked for.

On top of that, modern LLM chatbots have reinforcement learning part, where they learn how to write so that readers will enjoy reading it, which is no longer copying but instead “inventing” in a more trial-and-error style. Think of the videos on youtube you’ve seen of “AI learns to play x game”, where no training material of someone actually playing the game was used and the model still learned. I’m assuming that’s where the overuse of em-dash and quippy one liners come from. They were probably liked by either the human testers or the automated judges trained on the human feedback used in that process.

It says “people” not “percent of people”. I think 10 per year (and 50 in 1986) is quite the opposite of “a lot”.

Yes I love over-analyzing memes until they’re not funny anymore, why are you asking?

Different person here.

For me the big disqualifying factor is that LLMs don’t have any mutable state.

We humans have a part of our brain that can change our state from one to another as a reaction to input (through hormones, memories, etc). Some of those state changes are reversible, others aren’t. Some can be done consciously, some can be influenced consciously, some are entirely subconscious. This is also true for most animals we have observed. We can change their states through various means. In my opinion, this is a prerequisite in order to feel anything.

Once we use models with bits dedicated to such functionality, it’ll become a lot harder for me personally to argue against them having “feelings”, especially because in my worldview, continuity is not a prerequisite, and instead mostly an illusion.