I think the tells of AI video are becoming more subtle, similar to language. It's no longer so much that the visuals are categorically impossible, such as mangled hands or impossible geometric arrangements of objects, but you can still see style and composition that is more frequent in AI video (but could be possible in a real video as well in principle).
Such as higher production quality, too beautiful people, a kind of stock photo sheen, etc. Of course if you use special LoRAs or prompts and input images, it's possible to leave the stock footage style, but most people don't bother with it, just like most people use stock ChatGPT in its default voice with its favorite trope-filled cadence etc.
Maybe? For years the highest selling EV was the Leaf.
I agree Tesla kind of increased the desirability of EVs at least in the US, but I'm not convinced it wouldn't have happened anyway.
It's a hard question to answer, because you're talking about a counterfactual.
I feel like there's probably some broader type of cognitive bias at play (where we assume something common wouldn't have been common otherwise, because it is common) but I don't know what the term for it might be.
How do we know everyone's better for it? Massive amounts of public and private funding went into it and we still haven't seen the outcome, it's too soon.
Consider how many car manufacturers are backtracking, the fact that China will now win the EV race, utility energy prices have skyrocketed, and the damage done not only to the brand but people's view towards EVs in general.
problem is that when you are really in deep, you are not able to make that phone call.
It is good advice to always take someone with you. It is like saying: more experienced bikers don't need to wear helmet. Yes, 99.99% of the time things will be fine, but it's still good advice to always wear one. Because that 0.01% can lead to severe consequences.
> • Don't use aria-label or aria-labelledby on any other non-interactive content such as p, legend, li, or ul, because it is ignored.
> • Don't use aria-label or aria-labelledby on a span or div unless its given a role. When aria-label or aria-labelledby are on interactive roles (such as a link or button) or an img role, they override the contents of the div or span. Other roles besides Landmarks (discussed above) are ignored.
I have often wanted to do exactly this, and was disappointed when I learned aria-label couldn’t be used to replace the value exposed for non-interactive content. I have hunted for other techniques a couple of times, and never been completely satisfied, though things have improved in the last year and a bit.
The `inert` attribute is a recent addition which may exclude the accessibility text from find-in-page (maybe desirable, maybe undesirable, depending on the situation). Firefox and Chromium shipped that refinement of its behaviour in the last year and a half, Safari hasn’t yet (and seems to have reservations about the whole idea <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269909>).
You can also play with putting the accessibility text in a pseudoelement’s content (e.g. <span data-a11y-text=…><span aria-hidden=true>…</span></span> and [data-a11y-text]::after { content: attr(data-a11y-text); … }), which should these days be exposed in the accessibility tree, but Firefox find-in-page now includes generated content (though you can’t bridge real and generated content), and it wouldn’t surprise me if Chromium eventually followed suit, so I’m not convinced it’s worth the bother, especially if you lose `inert` or have to add an element anyway. But keeping it as an attribute instead of a separate element has some appeal.
If you want to use such an effect on your own website that’s probably the way to go (although I’d probably try to use real text in HTML and replace it with some CSS magic... or just use a web font).
For social media / forum sites etc, they should definitely add this. Make a plain text / accessible (user) name mandatory and a display name optional. And give end users the choice to show canonical name or display name.
I did not mind this linearity in Half-Life, because the story was engaging. You wanted to know what happened next. And I found the enemies did had some advanced "AI" for that time; like the first time the commandos came was a big moment. They were nothing like the enemies you had seen in other games.
It’s about using the right tools for the job. FAANG and developer advocates made the web needlessly complex for most people. The over-engineered tools and frameworks became the “default” way of programming for the web, loosing some strong key features that were good about it: simplicity, transparency, and speed.
Not so sure about that. You can easily write horrible code in React: Too complex, inefficient, and/or resource-intensive.
If you don’t know the tools and have good theoretical programming knowledge, all code will be spaghetti code in the long run.
I'm no fan of React, but these aren’t equivalent. If you follow the rules, react (or any of its alternatives) will manage stateful changes like adding and removing components and event listeners. JQuery is more similar to doing manual memory management in C. It’s extremely easy to get it wrong and introduce leaks and other non-local errors.
Can you give an example? I mean I know you can shoot yourself in the foot with any UI framework, but jQuery has no way of managing state, everything just leaks by default. Unless they’ve added something.
Some examples:
- Tim invented the WWW in 1989, but I'd took until around 2000 (10 years) to go to the web we now know with Streaming and Social Media.
- The first big mobile success (Nokia 3310) was in 2000, the 'end-stage' phone (iPhone 5 or something) was also 10 years later.
- Google Deepdream was in 2016, to "Will Smith eating spaghetti" in 2023, to now AI generated video literally unrecognisable from real.
I think we will be seeing some 'end-stage' AI in the next 5 years too, where the rate of improvements will sharply drop.
Robotics will probably be next? First company that can create an all purpose robot.
reply