I think it’s The Usual Suspects

I feel like that’s pretty meaningfully different from the original claim that the US government allows cigarettes to be advertised to children.

Didn’t they close up the loopholes in advertising regulations that Juul exploited?

What? Tobacco is like, the one thing that actually has extremely stringent advertising regulations in the US. When vaping products like Juul came around, they were able to exploit loopholes in those laws, but I think those have pretty much been patched up by now.

AI’s tendency to hallucinate means that for it to be actually reliable, a human needs to double-check all of its output. If it is being used to acquire and convey information of any kind to the prompter, you might as well just skip the AI and find the information manually, as you’d have to do that anyway to validate what it told you.

And AI hallucinations are a side effect of the fundamental way in which generative AI works - they will never be 100% accounted for. When an AI generates text, it is simply predicting what word is likely to come next based on its prompt in relation to its training data. While this predictive ability has become remarkably sophisticated within the last few years (more than I thought it ever would, tbh), it is still only a predictive text generator. It’s not “translating,” “understanding,” or “comprehending” anything about whatever subject it has been asked about - it is merely predicting the likelihood of the next word in its response based on its training data.

deleted by creator

should only be used for art

No, churning out uncanny valley slop built on mass IP theft ain’t it, either. Personally I think AI is best used for simulations and statistical models of engineering problems, where it can iteratively find optimized solutions faster and sometimes more accurately than humans. The focus on “generative AI” and LLMs trying to get computers to act like humans is incredibly pointless, IMO. Let computers do what computers are good at, and humans do what humans are good at.

Ohh, that’s probably what it actually is

It looks like “Cream Blindness” to me, not that it makes any more sense…

Goddammit, Nappa!

Now that you mention it, I think you might be right… My memory’s not the best lol. From the other replies, it seems that the rarity of redeye these days comes from the timing of modern cameras’ flash, not whether or not it uses film.

Wait, do digital cameras not do the red eye effect? Now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve seen a photo with red eye in it in a long time, but I had always assumed that was a consequence of the camera flash, not the film…

Edit: TIL that camera redeye does come from the flash, but it hasn’t been much of a thing these days because today’s phones/cameras adjust the flash timing to compensate. Thanks for the replies!