Chat Thread

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:

Then isn't someone then going to need to make that even more complex computer? Beyond logical arithmetic, computers only know as much as the person creating them.

I read about filter design recently and it's a good example here. Years ago people designing filters would need to do all the math by hand to calculate the values of the components they would need. It was pretty crude and you can see it in terms of how effective filters are now in comparison to then. Now people just use MATLAB. But the ratio of filter designers to filter demand is actually better than when it was all done by hand. MATLAB does most of the initial/general complex maths but it doesn't make it any easier, fuck, you probably need a degree course just on using MATLAB. It deals in ideal situations so doesn't and can't legislate for a whole host of external factors that will affect the filter. And compared to years ago the required quality of the filters is higher so you just can't let these bugs go. So MATLAB it gives you a base to start from but then the designer will have to solve all the other issues manually and accommodate all the clients filter need manually. I can't see a scenario in our life times where AI will be good enough, cheap enough or accessible enough to replace a person in a situation like this.

And I also don't see them cracking creative thinking ever. You think they'll be robot lawyers?

Er...the computer they just created that's better than them.  You're substantially underestimating the progression of computer technology, it's exponential not linear.

Yes, I think there will be robot lawyers eventually.  I'd be amazed if they don't crack creative thinking in our lifetimes, technology is only going in one direction and if crude, poorly designed meatbags can crack creative thought I don't see any reason computers couldn't eventually do it.  What makes you think they won't ever?

ayvee1 wrote:I didn't realise this place was still going.

Glen Miller wrote:Sony leaks apparently show that Big Driis is wanted as the next Bond. 

Glen Miller wrote:Yeah, I don't think that comment by Mooney is accurate at all, I think it can work both ways.  I just saw an advert for a new Sherlock Holmes programme in which Dr. Watson is now an Asian woman.  Most heroes were white males in the past because the society was dominated by white males-those characters reflect the times, and changing the character's skin colour just for the sake of it does more to disrespect the original work than it does to stick it to the prejudiced societies of 100/200 years ago.

Keyser Söze wrote:They made a black Annie.

Why?

Glen Miller wrote:Yeah, I don't think that comment by Mooney is accurate at all, I think it can work both ways.  I just saw an advert for a new Sherlock Holmes programme in which Dr. Watson is now an Asian woman.  Most heroes were white males in the past because the society was dominated by white males-those characters reflect the times, and changing the character's skin colour just for the sake of it does more to disrespect the original work than it does to stick it to the prejudiced societies of 100/200 years ago.

Ra's al Ghul wrote:How does it do disrespect to the original work to cast people of colour in originally white roles? Especially something like Elementary which is not even set in the same time as Conan Doyle's stories? The fact of the matter is that the stories of people of colour are so few and far between in pop culture that some of the only opportunities that these actors get are in traditionally white roles. Honestly I can't believe you made this complaint, Glen, when white people have been cast in roles of real life, non-white characters since forever. Complaining about an Asian John Watson seems so trivial when Jesus has been perpetually portrayed as a white man. To say that this kind of this thing works both ways is incredibly reductive of the extent of how lopsided the ratio is. Whitewashing is much, much more common than unmerited ethnic diversification.

Glen Miller wrote:Fair enough, my comments do come across as fairly ignorant.

Keyser Söze wrote:Ghul's point was excellently made. I wonder Glen, did you mean you find it irritating how sometimes people of colour are cast in roles purely because they're of colour?  If so then I'd agree with you.

Like this Annie film. Fair enough if they cast all those actors on merit and they just happened to be black, or if they cast a few black actors on merit (Jamie Foxx) and then thought that socially it would make little sense to have white people in it so went all black, but if they just sat around a table and said "lets make a black version of Annie" then I don't agree with that at all. Same with Elementary, if they wanted to mix it up and have women and then genuinely thought this Asian lady was the best for the part then OK, but if they cast her because she's Asian then again I don't agree with that.

It works both ways. Can you imagine how shit The Wire would have been had they tried to make it about white gangs? White people just can't pull of that "ma nigga" style. In fact most people rank season 2 of The Wire as the worst season and that was basically an all white season.  

Glen Miller wrote:using actors specifically chosen for their race, add a message/racial element that wasn't intended in the original work.

SBSP wrote:Are any footballers worth following on Twitter?