I've always loved this quote: "What audacious criminal, what mystifier, what maniac collector, what insane lover, has committed this abduction?"
Though Peruggia claims he did it out of patriotism, I've always nursed the theory that, during its absence, the original was used as reference to create several extremely good fake versions. These could be sold as the original, since everyone knew it had been stolen, and each would think they had the real one. Then the original is returned, and the buyers are without recourse. What are you going to do, tell the police? And of course Peruggia et al would say nothing.
I suspect this isn't true, but the fun part is that it could be and no one would ever know. So I'm choosing to believe it is so.
Your post reminds me of the very underrated latest film from Orson Well, F for Fake, which is about forgery. It contains an excellent quote from Elmyr de Hory, a notorious art forger, who at some point exclaims: "Guilty? Of what? Making masterpieces?".
The details of the crime seem to point to something like this.
Remember that Picasso was questioned and probably involved. One theory is that what we think is the original is, in fact, a master-copy by Picasso. The original is held privately in Florence.
He said the thief returned the original. The copies would have (supposedly) sold to people who wouldn't be able to complain without incriminating themselves.
There's a reason why you have connoisseurs. You can fool carbon dating by using materials from that time. I'll have to look into the x-rays and what they show, but it can be quite hard to prove art authentic with scientific methods alone.
They wouldn’t be able to do much with an oil painting. Any old drying oil from that time period would have long ago polymerized and carbon isotopes in any new oil used to mix the pigments would be a dead giveaway.
I like this approach to epistemology :) Imagine how many what-ifs it could turn up if automated & applied across the corpus of knowledge (scientific & otherwise) :) We'd have Pepe Silvio on steroids, and that I'd like to see =)
FYI (and to those concerned) I ended up changing the headline after Aravind clarified. Since they are an AI company offering AI-powered election-day tracking that would presumably have replaced what the striking folks supported, I think it was well justified at the outset, but now that he's backtracked would be misleading to leave it. Still not great!
"Bending the knee" is a way to say that someone knelt - going down on one knee, a sign of loyalty and subservience. In this context it implies Bezos acknowledges Trump as an authority he submits to.
Editorials, by an outlet's editorial board or otherwise, have consistently been among the most popular content in news for over a century. That includes endorsements.
I think we could presume an answer - if the respondents first received a full accounting of how their phones track and record their lives, along with a full list of who is getting that data.
Ok my next comeback - people are treating AI tools like a musical instrument.
It’s like picking up a guitar for the first time, twanging a few strings and saying ‘Nah, this sounds shit’. Guitars are useless. I’d never pay for a guitar.
Even chatGPT has a learning curve. I save myself hours or days per day using it for all sorts of things. Anyone who says they can’t find a use for AI is just lazy and hasn’t tried hard.
There are lots of people who could benefit massively from using AI. Who have no moral objection to it. But they just dismiss it so quickly because it doesn’t instantly, magically make beautiful things for them.
Anyone who cannot get something useful done by AI - who does want to do that - is lazy.
It’s like saying in the 19th century - oh this electricity isn’t really useful for anything much beyond lights. What’s the point?
> There are lots of people who could benefit massively from using AI
This might be the central point of the conflict. I believe there are a few people who can benefit a great deal. And I think lots of people could probably benefit a little. But I don't think lots of people could benefit massively. It just doesn't work that well.
Whoa, personal attacks like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, we'd appreciate it.
I understand diffusion models somewhat, but I simply don't understand how the actual denoising steps can be skipped in this method. Like isn't the whole point of diffusion, which this uses as a basis, that it must go stepwise from noise to image? Even distilling a diffusion model and accelerating it, it feels crazy that it could go from taking 50 steps to taking 1 or 2.
I've looked at a few papers but none seems to explain in simple terms what is going on here. It's like saying, we made a new car where you turn it on and you are at your destination. If anyone has come across an accessible explanation of this approach I'd love to look at it.
to use an imperfect analogy, they're learning how to get from point a to point b in a straight line versus having to drive around a meandering path through the neighborhood taking every back road
I have more or less the same setup and frustrations. I just have a list of things in my head (certain settings panels, calculator app) that I know neither Everything nor Launchy can find, and those are the one time that week I click the start button. Pretty sad. But really I'm happy with the other tools.
