It depends on if you want original work or if you are confident all your tasks someone has a)done before and b)published somewhere that was stuck into the learning set.

True. I guess what will happen is that an academic will share any unpublished data with an AI tool to analyse, sort and refine. And then use it to generate a publication.

My wife is an academic and has written a couple of books, she genuinely isn’t bothered if no-one reads them, and the end goal – the published book, isn’t the point of the project. AI isn’t going to do her work any better

I’m afraid that it will.

If not now then imminently. It will be able to do, in a matter of minutes, what it takes her months or years to create. I would guess that the main reason she writes is that it’s her job. It generates a wage that helps to pay bills and mortgages etc.

Why would any employer continue to pay for that time when the same task can be done instantly and with little or no cost?

Has the genie now been let out of the bottle and we simply have to live with how it progresses? Some countries may choose to regulate, others not?

It pretty much has. A couple of weeks ago a version of this type of AI was released that can be powered by a home PC. So it’s not just a plaything of big corporations. And the ways the tech can be used for nasty stuff, particularly scams and disinformation, is scary.

There’s a bizarre situation where many of the people developing this tech are urging state governments to start limiting their activities. And they’re not really interested. In the UK, the Tory response has been to allocate around a billion pounds to create a BritGPT.

Sounds good. I’m looking forward to a few new Culture novels…

Aye, there are lots of exciting possibilities.
Basically, the ability to generate anything you can think of in a couple of seconds.
But it all goes a bit King Midas when you start to ponder the implications.

Well there will. Because one will be shit, pappy self-published crap written by some-one who’s done a community course in creative writing who thinks that they’re now the next Hilary Mantel, and well; Hilary Mantel (if she wasn’t dead, obvs)

I don’t think that will happen. Somebody who aspires to write like Hilary Mantel isn’t going to go on a creative writing course. What would be the point when they can generate what they want via a prompt?

Why should any young person aspire to be a writer? Or an artist or a programmer?

The ability to create is becoming worthless.

We live in that world now, There’s nothing stopping you or anyone else from writing anything and self publishing it. Amazon is filled to the brim with this pap already.

True but I think there’s going to be a vast difference in the sheer volume and quality.

There will be no divide between pappy, self-published stuff and esteemed best sellers.

AI will be able to generate infinite books in the style of a particular author or genre. And they can be crafted to the user’s tastes. Removing elements they don’t like. Adding subjects and themes they’re more interested in.

Great works of fiction generated by anyone via a prompt. To such an extent that human creativity starts to lose its worth. A basic element of human existence that is in danger of being lost.

Interesting how such an important topic that has implications for the future of human society is reduced to whether Elon Musk is a dick or not. He’s just one of over 1,000 signatories.

It’s an issue that should be talked about. There should be a public discourse. And talked about in a more nuanced way than – is AI going to become sentient and kill us all?

The implications are a world in which human creativity has no value. Where everyone can write a book, create software, compose music, design buildings, create art, make movies etc. Where it all becomes a mush. A drab haze.

A world where reality and fantasy are no longer distinguishable. Where there’s no way of knowing whether what you see or hear is human or AI-generated. Where disinformation can be created en masse and personalised to trigger the desired responses.

Where the majority of human jobs can be better done by AI systems.

Clearly there will be checks in place to stop it being used illegally, but what about legal, but, arguably, immoral activities?

Yep, loads of potential to be used for immoral activities.

One that springs to mind is use as a political tool to generate messaging that’s based on a person’s likes/dislikes, history, prejudices etc. The ability to spam social media with highly effective and personalised messaging that’s impossible to distinguish from human interactions.

could the ChatGPT owners be similarly targeted by content/data providers if their data is used to generate a commercial ChatGPT solution?

I don’t think this will be a problem. It reinterprets and adapts from existing sources in much the same way that a human writer does. The copy it generates is designed to pass plagiarism tests.

There’s something about England.
Probably the best squad in the tournament with a scary amount of young talented players.

And yet. They play weird Opta Stats football. Clinical and effective. Sensible and dull.
Based on percentages. On not conceding and winning set-pieces by drawing fouls…AKA diving.
Allows them to effortlessly glide past weaker teams but is a limiting style against the top tier.

Eric B & Rakim – Follow The Leader

“a film produced with Shimano”

I’m sure it’s a good film and an uplifting story but I avoid adverts.

Anyone else play, or are learning?

I’ve been messing with a Roland Go Keys for a couple of years.
I found trying to learn any tunes too boring and frustrating.
What works better for me is learning bits of theory and then just messing around with it.

Mostly do repetitive, droney, relaxing noises while I’m watching stuff.
The best YouTube I’ve found for theory is this fella: Michael New

One simple but powerful way people can show opposition to the monarchy is to stop using all the titles.
Just use their names – Charles Windsor, William Windsor etc.
Same with all the daft peerage titles: Lords, viscounts, baronets, earls, marquesses etc.

Part of the problem for republicans is that over a period of 70 years Mrs Windsor did very little to screw up and was sufficiently committed to her role to gain widespread respect, even from some republicans as the first post on this thread and the thread’s title suggests, I think it is highly unlikely that the new King will match that although I doubt that he will behave in the manner that will create a crisis and undermine the monarchy. But you never know.

I think the problems are more fundamental for the monarchy and it doesn’t particularly matter what an individual does. It faces a situation that’s similar to organised religion at the start of the C20th.
It’s a belief system that upcoming generations are simply less inclined to believe in. For lots of complex reasons but mostly just because society has changed.

Which show was it that had clips from Victor Lewis-Smith? And Dick Spanner? Drawn a blank with Google.

Think it was Network 7. Victor Lewis-Smith went on to have his own show, TV Offal.

Anyone remember Pets a pupet show on late after Adam and Joe show.

Can’t remember that but triggered memories of something else in a similar slot.
Late night Channel 4 show which highlighted weird stuff from US public access channels.
May have been late 80s.

Gilbert the Alien’s residency on Get Fresh.
A painfully bland and boring Saturday morning kids TV show that was made watchable by the anarchic spirit of a snotty-nosed alien.

The UK government is completely stable.

I don’t think that’s relevant.
Changes don’t just happen when there’s some big crisis.
They are usually the result of grindingly long campaigns which start out with people promoting something that’s unpopular.

IMHO most people don’t see the UK and is governance as something that’s broken and needs fixing. STW isn’t representative of the British population as a whole.

I agree. It’s the status quo and unless it’s challenged it stays that way.
Any kind of radical change is unthinkable, until it’s not.

Brexit is a recent example of a complete non-issue. Something that only a tiny minority cared about which was turned into an issue that dominated British politics and led to a societal change.

An older but more relevant example is C19th Chartism which turned a political anorak topic (voting reforms) into a major working-class movement.

Polling currently suggests around two thirds of people under 50 do not support the monarchy, so it wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

The benefits of abolition of the monarchy would be insignificant imo and have no bearing on the lives of most people.

I think it would be hugely beneficial — a rethinking of the relationship between people, power and state.
As history has shown, it has the potential to be an effective political tool for achieving change.
It can capture imaginations in ways that reforming the House of Lords will struggle to match.
It has the potential to become a Brexit-style issue that creates a common cause, particularly in Wales and Scotland.
And it’s an idea that has time on its side.

So quite a lot then?

Yes but only when they really, really had to.
Most of the time, British colonialists were bloody nice fellas.
Rosy-cheeked chaps who loved nothing more than a game of cricket before cutting some trade deals with the natives.
Unfortunately, if they didn’t play ball then large-scale slaughter was the only option. Damned shame.

Here’s a list of some of their greatest hits: Wars involving the UK

What’s notable about many of the C19th conflicts is the sheer numbers involved.
Long forgotten (in the UK) wars and battles in which hundreds of thousands are killed.
And often with minimal British casualties – guns versus spears.

With this in mind, was ‘the Empire’ a result of political rulers at the time? Or is the consensus that the Monarchy ‘suggested’ that Great Britain take over 1/4 of the land mass on the planet?

I would say a complex mix of private companies, monarchy and military.
Initially, starts with the success of privateers/pirates which the monarchy endorses.
Royal charter granted to the East India Company in 1600 makes it legal and respectable to rob other countries.
Then the wealth acquired helps to fund the industrial revolution – and the emergence of a military-industrial complex.
So monarchy plays a minimal but vital role – supporters and enablers rather than drivers.

It might sound like arcane political theory, but what happens when a government loses an election. Why would any of its laws still continue beyond its tenure in office? So you have a head of state which means that the judiciary, the police, the armed forces etc etc still have authority…. because it is conferred upon them by the soveriegn power & not by the government which has a limited lifespan.

That’s such an abstract admin role that it could be done by anything – animal, vegetable or mineral.
The idea that society would collapse if some aristocrat isn’t handed mythical powers for a few days is daft.
And you could choose something to fulfil the role that isn’t a global symbol of class privilege and inequality.
Maybe a cat. Or more boringly, a civil servant.

I still dont know what we need a head of state for. Don’t get it at all

In theory, it’s a check on political power.
But as the UK doesn’t have a constitution, there’s nothing for them to do.
Other than to be incredibly wealthy, wear hats and occasionally open things.

Well done to the protesters in Cardiff today.
Despite the media bombardment and hostility of police/state – a few dissenting voices making themselves heard.

Nice, apart from curly bars.

Eddie Butler always seemed like the official voice of Welsh rugby.
And Wales is a complex place where rugby represents certain values.
Rugby tends to be linked to a British form of Welshness – to monarchy and military.

Eddie seemed like such a solid slab of the establishment, somebody who would support those views.
So really surprising that in recent years, he started to speak about his support for Welsh independence.
He was the last person I would have expected – which probably says a lot about my prejudices.
But it made it all the more powerful and emotional when he did.

Diolch Eddie.

For example?

Whatever a person values and respects.
Freedom, community, friendship, wisdom, security, humour, family, democracy, nature, talent…whatever.

It shouldn’t be manufactured by the state.
Particularly when it’s the manufactured worship of aristocracy.

Who or what do you propose the people worship then?

Something that doesn’t promote and celebrate inequality.

I don’t believe that the monarchy debate is driving supply-side inflation, but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

I was thinking more along the lines of feelings of hopelessness and despair. Of generational resentment and anger.
A response to living in a state that seems to idolise the wealthy and have disdain for the poor.

Lots of attention paid to people grieving. Which is understandable.

But I’ve seen no mention of the potential impact on those who don’t support the monarchy. And that includes the majority of young people (two-thirds of those under 24).

What are the health and psychological implications of being bombarded for such an extended period with this stuff?
People who are facing lots of issues – inflation, rent, jobs, housing etc who are being given absolutely no voice or platform in the mainstream media.

What does that do to people?

What a grotesque and absurd spectacle.
A state cult that promotes the worship of aristocracy.

Something I’ve been pondering.

Do many people who generally support having a monarchy feel uncomfortable about the way it’s presented in the media? And that it could be counter-productive to limit discussion and to filter out dissent.

Call the monarchy a fascist idea if you wish but all societies have fascist tendencies and perhaps the monarchy absorbs some of that energy and parks it in a more benign place, one where we are not sure what it actually stands for. Let loose, who knows to what cause those feelings would be hitched?

Well we all know really don’t we…

Hmm. As people are placed into police vans for criticising the monarchy.
Let us rejoice in our nice benign form of British fascism.

we know you want a revolution but it seems like the majority of people don’t. In fact, a lot of them seem quite happy to drink Earl Grey out of the Lady Dianna – Princess of Hearts china cup while having a little cry over the Daily Mails 24 page ‘Isn’t Royalty Simply Marvellous?’ supplement

That’s the impression that’s given in the media but that’s thanks to stringent filtering.
The support depends massively on age with those over 50 generally supportive and those under – not.

Should Britain have a monarch?

It’s obvious that negativity has caused a great deal of distress for people dealing with grief.

The only sensible option is to remove any negative messages. I should think this will need collaboration between some of the prominent royalist contributors and the moderators to determine the offending posts.

I suggest no future threads about the monarchy are permitted without prior agreement with the moderation team. What we can’t have is people in grief innocently clicking on links and being exposed to negative thoughts concerning the monarchy.

I suggest that when any future monarchy-related threads are approved they should carry a warning that they may contain content that a royalist may find disturbing.

Because in the grander scheme of things the monarchy is a blip, abolish it and send a message by all means, but any money saved will make little difference to people who need support.

I don’t think it is. It’s not about the money.
It’s hard to tackle any real problems in a state that worships a totem of inequality.

Find it hard to understand how anyone who thinks of themselves as a socialist can have no strong feelings about the monarchy.

At the heart of a democracy, you have an aristocratic family who enjoy lives of extreme wealth and privilege for no reason other than they were born into it.

And this is something that should not just be tolerated, it should be aggressively celebrated. That these people should be worshipped and idolised. And that any attempts to question any of this should be avoided/shouted down.

It cements the basic idea that some people/classes are born to have better lives than others. That inequality is not something we should try to change. It’s something we should rejoice in.

I knew about the strained relationship between Thatcher and the Queen but I hadn’t realised just how serious and hostile it had been. And I certainly wasn’t aware until I read the article that the then Prince Charles had also been pretty hostile towards Thatcher.

What a load of absolute twaddle. It’s kind of deranged.

It’s raining. Good work Scotland.