paulgadzikowski

[paulgadzikowski]

The Vampire Lestat The Cat Garfield

[paulgadzikowski]

Calling a technology "bad for the environment" is a politically vacuous framework. It makes invisible the ways classes of people intentionally develop tech in a resource-intensive way. It erases the fact that tech is controlled by PEOPLE who should be held accountable. Saying that anything is "bad for the environment" isn't useful framing. Throwing a napkin in the street is bad for the environment but negligible compared to driving a car or eating meat. Yet, the negligible act feels worse. The better framing is: is the resource cost worth the benefit provided?

I think the resources required to develop genAI and machine learning are worth the cost. BUT there's no reason for dozens of companies to build huge proprietary models or for aggressive data center expansion. AI CAN be developed sustainably. But a for-profit system doesn't incentivize this.

Some might argue that any use of AI is a waste of resources. This is disingenuous and ignores the active applications of AI in education, medicine, and admin. And even if it were frivolous, it's okay for societies to produce frivolous things as long as it's produced sustainably. Communist societies will still produce soda, stylish hats, and video games.

Even if you think AI is frivolous, it CAN be produced sustainably, but we live in a for profit system where big tech companies are using a ton of unnecessary resources in ways that hurt the public. But we know tech (not just AI) can be sustainable & energy efficient. Computing is one of the most energy efficient things humans do compared to how much we rely on it, and is only increasing in efficiency.

If you're critical of AI, framing it as uniquely bad for the environment isn't useful and isn't true. At the individual level, it's less wasteful than eating meat and slightly less energy intensive than watching Netflix. Some models can be run locally on your computer. Training can be energy intensive but is infrequent, and only needs to be done once per model.

Also, there are real harms in overstating AI energy use! Energy and utility companies are using overinflated AI energy numbers to justify a huge buildout of oil and gas.

If you're critical of AI, you should instead ask: What are we getting for the resources used? What outcome are we trying to get out of AI & tech development? Are all these resources necessary for the outcomes we seek? AI CAN be environmentally sustainable, but there are systems and people who want to foreclose this possibility. Headlines like "ChatGPT uses 10x more energy than Google search" (not even true), shift blame from institutional actors onto individuals, from profit-motives onto technology.

[paulgadzikowski]

Some names just sound so ridiculously fake that had they been fictional, people would’ve rolled their eyes in complete disbelief. Like seriously. Wdym there’s a mf called Galileo Galilei. Stfu. You just made that up

[paulgadzikowski]

So I rolled into Oak Park about 19:30, for a week of working with my stepdaughter to find me an apartment close to them, not knowing I had reserved a room in a bed&breakfast and not a hotel

First pf a;; yje I hate my laptop keyboard of all they'd sent me an email with check-in information which either had gone to spam or which I'd deleted for failure to recognize it because it came from the BnB management company whose name had not appeared in any of the documentation I'd received before

Then the map for the place at Expedia was confusing because it was pimping a museum around the corner and I thought that was where I was staying

Then when I finally had the correct address I couldn't find it till I phoned the contact person who texted me a map

This was when I realized that I wasn't staying in a place with a front desk to check in. I was at the front door of my room and I didn't know how to get in it.

Meanwhile I'm trying to navigate all this on my phone which I don't ordinarily go on the internet with. So I go to my stepdaughter's and son-in-law's place to put my laptop on their wifi and then, fInAlLy, I notice the paragraph that tells me the last four digits of my phone number are what to put into the code reader on the door.

Also in Oak Park you have to arrange for street parking every night. And pay for it.

I didn't stop for lunch on the drive and we went out to eat about 22:00

I hate moving

[paulgadzikowski]

The location scout for that superhero streaming series brings all the yards to The Boys

[paulgadzikowski]

[paulgadzikowski]

at my post

[paulgadzikowski]

James Arthur Lovell Jr. ( March 25, 1928 – August 7, 2025)

[paulgadzikowski]

[paulgadzikowski]

plant cats

plants that look like they're dying immediately after you forget to water them one (1) time but also recover immediately after you do are my best friends actually. very clear signals, hold no grudges, that's a relationship that works for me

[paulgadzikowski]

the one about podcasts makes me feel old

mike do you need to talk about anything

[paulgadzikowski]

don't let this flop. monty python watchers what phrases have had the most impact on your lexicon. for me it's "what's all this then" and "other than that, perfectly normal"

[paulgadzikowski]

AI industry groups are urging an appeals court to block what they say is the largest copyright class action ever certified. They’ve warned that a single lawsuit raised by three authors over Anthropic’s AI training now threatens to “financially ruin” the entire AI industry if up to 7 million claimants end up joining the litigation and forcing a settlement.

well…darn

[paulgadzikowski]

Well yeah, I know it's a more than reasonable assumption, but what criteria must you meet to join the class action?

Or am I asking a question that is answered in the article I haven't read yet

AI industry groups are urging an appeals court to block what they say is the largest copyright class action ever certified. They’ve warned that a single lawsuit raised by three authors over Anthropic’s AI training now threatens to “financially ruin” the entire AI industry if up to 7 million claimants end up joining the litigation and forcing a settlement.

well…darn

[paulgadzikowski]

How do you find out whether you were one of the scrapees?

(It's been pointed out that absurdly minimalist art like my triangles isn't good AI art fodder. But 1) my prose at AO3 or some of my line-drawing - like most of AKOTAS - might be among what's been trawled 2) the triangles might have been trawled by some kind of automatic scraper but just are such an outlier that they don't have significant influence on output - but that's still unauthorized presence in the AI database 3) I may have readers who need to know.)

AI industry groups are urging an appeals court to block what they say is the largest copyright class action ever certified. They’ve warned that a single lawsuit raised by three authors over Anthropic’s AI training now threatens to “financially ruin” the entire AI industry if up to 7 million claimants end up joining the litigation and forcing a settlement.

well…darn

[paulgadzikowski]

My impression was that much or most of Pelia's manner when she was talking about the danger and the terror in their situation was mugging for brother Ortegas' camera. She's never reacted that baldly to anything else (the closest exception was when she was scaring Scott to prompt his best work from him, which was revealed as playacting right away) and when she was done she dropped the mood instantly to ask Umberto whether he might need a better take. I'm sure the content of what she was saying in the briefing room was honest and true as far as it went, and maybe that alone is reason to believe she was more on edge this episode than before (I've only seen it once), but the presentation maybe is not to be trusted.

You're definitely onto something with the rest of this.

Wait, in Shuttle to Kenfori Spock mind melds with Batel to try and help her manage her pain, and when he gets into her head something in there screams, it makes both Batel And Spock scream and it makes Spock (however briefly) physically violent and he throws Gamble across the room.

In ep 5, a being that (probably) invades peoples minds (how Else would it know personal information that people had never told it) and uses what it finds to manipulate/scare who it's talking to. A couple of seconds after Batel walks into the room with it, whatever is in Her head once Again gets violent and attacks Not!Gamble, and even speaks using her body this time in a language Batel could not know.

Maybe what took over Batel in this episode took over Spock in episode 3 through the meld? Probably? I think before I assumed that he'd taken in her pain and the added confusion of that thing screaming at him made him lash out without realising he'd done it. I have disassociated and moved without knowing before, it's a thing.

But now i'm wondering if whatever is living in Batel Objects Violently to anybody invading its consciousness, because it's the only time its shown its head. It doesn't seem to mind Batel herself, and just pops up when anything/body telepathic butts in?

Because I put this episode back on to see if the thing living in her head looked like the same thing in those orb prisons and it very much was the same bit of animation. And if they're an ancient malevolent being, how did one find its way into Batel through Gorn DNA in her system?

The Gorn are scary yes, but they're portrayed as an advanced species feeding and procreating... It's just they do that by consuming/killing humanoids so we Would object to that. They've not been portrayed at horrifyingly evil and malevolent and had Pelia terrified? I mean she didn't want to end up lunch, but she was Scared in this episode in a way she wasn't facing the gorn before. So while the two plot lines seem destined to come to a head, i Really doubt its as simple as them just being gorn.

[paulgadzikowski]

prev

Neither do I but I think you're onto something

alright guys worst homestuck stunt casting takes possible I'll start. Zendaya is Roxy