FaceDeer

Have those AI friends play matchmaker between their human companions, solves both problems.

There’s a famous literary analysis essay about this, The Death of the Author, that argues for the latter. I happen to strongly believe this view.

I decide what a work of fiction means to me, and since it’s a work of fiction there is no “higher” meaning than that. Other people can of course present their ideas about what it means, and if I like those ideas I’ll adopt them into my own thoughts on the matter. The creator can be one of those “other people” but he gets no special role in the argument; he has to make his case just like anyone else and I feel free to say “no, that’s dumb. I think it means something else.”

Or newer ones either, apparently. Every single review lies within that December to February timeframe.

I went over to an Amazon listing for this same kind of trap and the average of 786 reviews is 4.4 stars out of 5. There’s much more variety in the 1-star reviews over there, too.

That’s very weird, frankly. 75 reviews and every single one of them with 1 star says the same thing? And all of them within the period of Dec 2024-Feb 2025? Not to mention I’ve been using these for years myself and have never seen a mouse survive, the kill arm smashes hard and the trigger is very sensitive. I get the suspicion that one person had a bad experience and spent a few months review-bombing.

https://i.imgur.com/D47rAqy.jpeg

I occasionally deal with a mouse or two in my house, and I much prefer these kinds of traps. They’re slightly more expensive, but you don’t need many and they’re reusable so that doesn’t really matter much. The advantages are:

• Super easy to set, just pull the jaw open by the little handle and it clicks in place. No need to touch the dead mouse, it plops right out into a garbage can.
• I’ve never had mice successfully steal the bait, the cover forces them to put their heads in exactly the right place for the kill bar to come down on them.
• This also means that I’ve never seen a mouse fail to get instantly and painlessly killed.

The best places to put mousetraps are often dark and hard to see, and the bright red kill bar makes it easy to tell at a glance whether it’s triggered.

And the other mice will clean it up too.

No, just surprised about how uninformed and knee-jerk those opinions are.

In my experience, it’s likely that some of those downvotes come from reflexive “AI bad! How dare you say AI good!” Reactions, not anything specific to mental health. For a community called “technology” there’s a pretty strong anti-AI bubble going on here.

If they don’t then someone else will.

Meanwhile, publishers: “why is everyone using AI instead of viewing our sites themselves?”

Interestingly, I’m not seeing your quoted content when I look at this article. I see a three-paragraph-long article that says in a nutshell “people don’t visit source sites as much now that AI summarizes the contents for them.” (Ironic that I am manually summarizing it like that).

Perhaps it’s some kind of paywall blocking me from seeing the rest? I don’t see any popup telling me that, but I’ve got a lot of adblockers that might be stopping that from appearing. I’m not going to disable adblockers just to see whether this is paywalled, given how incredibly intrusive and annoying ads are these days.

Gee, I wonder why people prefer AI.

Any reason to say that other than that it didn’t give the result you wanted?

The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak.

That’s a work of fiction. You might as well suggest dropping lightsabres on the bunker.

What material would that be? Corrosives have limits, they can’t just keep dissolving stuff forever.

And what would “total failure” look like? It’s a mountain, it’s not going to just collapse into goo.

And I read that the US used more than half of its stock of these bunker-buster bombs in this attack, the largest conventional bunker-busters in existence. So they can’t simply try again.

And no bomb is irresistible.

It made the ruling stronger, not weaker. The judge was accepting the most extreme claims that the Authors were making and still finding no copyright violation from training. Pushing back those claims won’t help their case, it’s already as strong as it’s ever going to get.

As far as the judge was concerned, it didn’t matter whether the AI did or did not “memorize” its training data. He said it didn’t violate copyright either way.

I don’t see what distinction you’re trying to draw here. It previously had trouble generating full glasses of wine, they made some changes, now it can. As a result, AIs are capable of generating an image of a full wine glass.

This is just another goalpost that’s been blown past, like the “AI will never be able to draw hands correctly” thing that was so popular back in the day. Now AIs are quite good at drawing hands, and so new “but they can’t do X!” Standards have been invented. I see no fundamental reason why any of those standards won’t ultimately be surpassed.