We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it's complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.

Losing 2,000 litres of helium is possibly the worst part of this.

Remember, Putin says that he is doing this to liberate the Ukrainian people.

The author trying to make a connection is not clarifying which bias Tlaib meant. It is just as likely to be misrepresenting what Tlaib meant.

And, when you think about it, Tlaib said biases - plural - so this 'clarification' - if it was a clarification - is ignoring the other biases.

That is the error that the model made. Your quote talks about the causes of these errors. I asked what caused the model to make this error.

Sure, but which of these factors do you think were relevant to the case in the article? The AI seems to have had a large corpus of documents relating to the reporter. Those articles presumably stated clearly that he was the reporter and not the defendant. We are left with "incorrect assumptions made by the model". What kind of assumption would that be?

In fact, all of the results are hallucinations. It's just that some of them happen to be good answers and others are not. Instead of labelling the bad answers as hallucinations, we should be labelling the good ones as confirmation bias.

Cities are inherently car centric. Think about a typical crossroads controlled by lights. When the light is green, a car can enter the junction and can then leave in any direction (sometimes it has to wait for oncoming traffic, but it can always leave when the lights change again). When the light goes green for a pedestrian at the same junction, they can cross 1 road only.

Fundamentally, the cars are in the middle. They don't have to cross pavements (or cycle lanes) to turn. Everyone else has to cross the road.

Of course, there are exceptions, where a junction has been designed so that, for example, pedestrians can cross diagonally. Likewise the cycle lane sometimes continues across the junction, but mostly doesn't.

He's just a confused old man.

You're thinking about Mr Biden again, sir. Don't you worry about it. Let's check your diaper and get you back to the TV Room, OK? Don't forget your special red hat.

As far as I can tell, Microsoft tried to hold off these anti-trust lawsuits by intentionally making the interoperability and feature-parity between its products shockingly bad.

Destroyed? Let's talk about that.

As you know, Stonehenge has been standing in the rain for 3,000 years.

Following the industrial revolution, fossil fuel emissions made that acid rain. It attacked every cultural artifact standing outdoors for decades.

I think that the people who did that belong behind bars.

They'll probably publish the abridged version, sadly. The full version reads, as we well know:

Thou shall not commit adultery but, if thou doest, thou shalt pay off the other woman so that it harmeth not thy chances in the presidential election. Nor shall it turn thy supporters against thee when they heareth of it.

It's good of the author to extend Futo the benefit of the doubt in this way.

The very first paragraph of their definition is: "Open source just means access to the source code.". If they are really that unfamiliar with the software industry, then their code must be a horror show. Personally, I think they know exactly what they are doing.