Also, there's some confirmation bias and survival bias here. You won't read something that's boring and static to you, or you don't bother remembering reading/watching them. Whereas if something wakes your interest, you'll likely to explore further. At school, you were forced to learn things regardless of whether you might or might not like.

Also, 'you' of today is not the same 'you' back at school. You're now much more experienced and knowledgeable than before. So reading, understanding things are easier than at 15. It's like learning a new language, at first it is challenging because you know only a handful of words, but as you learn more, it gets easier. You know where things are in the big picture and they become interesting.

Which is sub-optimal -> bad. You don't want to train on output from an AI because you'll end up with a worse version of whatever that AI is already being bad at (hands, foot, and countless other things). This is the AI feedback loop that people have been talking about.

So instead of figuring out what Midjourney has done to get such good result, people just blatantly straight copied those results and fed them directly into the AI, as true as the art thief stereotype they are.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32063146

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

"In his recent book, The Infinity Puzzle (Basic Books, 2011), Frank Close points out that a mistake of mine was in part responsible for the term “Higgs boson.” In my 1967 paper on the unification of weak and electromagnetic forces, I cited 1964 work by Peter Higgs and two other sets of theorists. This was because they had all explored the mathematics of symmetry-breaking in general theories with force-carrying particles, though they did not apply it to weak and electromagnetic forces. As known since 1961, a typical consequence of theories of symmetry-breaking is the appearance of new particles, as a sort of debris. A specific particle of this general class was predicted in my 1967 paper; this is the Higgs boson now being sought at the LHC.

As to my responsibility for the name “Higgs boson,” because of a mistake in reading the dates on these three earlier papers, I thought that the earliest was the one by Higgs, so in my 1967 paper I cited Higgs first, and have done so since then. Other physicists apparently have followed my lead. But as Close points out, the earliest paper of the three I cited was actually the one by Robert Brout and François Englert. In extenuation of my mistake, I should note that Higgs and Brout and Englert did their work independently and at about the same time, as also did the third group (Gerald Guralnik, C.R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble). But the name “Higgs boson” seems to have stuck."

Source: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/05/10/crisis-big-scien...