You see either something special, or nothing special.
Sorry if I'm missing something stupid, but doesn't that first sentence there explain the situation? “Please note that we are not accepting applications to use the cluster at this time.” I would presume the Submit button is just vestigial due to not being able to easily hide/remove it at that target URL.
Assuming I'm right, what would be nicer presentation-wise is if the page at https://safe.ai/work/compute-cluster were to change its button to a non-button reading “Applications Currently Closed” or such, and if the explanation included something more explicitly referring to the non-functional UI like “This form thus cannot currently be submitted.”
I don't fully agree with gears, but I think it's worth thinking about. If you're talking about “proportion of people who sincerely think that way”, and if we're in the context of outreach, I doubt that matters as much as “proportion of people who will see someone else point at you and make ‘eww another AI slop spewer’ noises, then decide out of self-preservation that they'd better not say anything positive about you or reveal that they've changed their mind about anything because of you”. Also, “creatives who feel threatened by role displacement or think generative AI is morally equivalent to super-plagiarism (whether or not this is due to inaccurate mental models of how it works)” seems like an interest group that might have disproportionate reach.
But I'm also not sure how far that pans out in importance-weighting. I expect my perception of the above to be pretty biased by bubble effects, but I also think we've (especially in the USA, but with a bunch of impact elsewhere due to American cultural-feed dominance) just gone through a period where an overarching memeplex that includes that kind of thing has had massive influence, and I expect that to have a long linger time even if the wave has somewhat crested by now.
On the whole I am pretty divided about whether actively skirting around the landmines there is a good idea or not, though my intuition suggests some kind of mixed strategy split between operators would be best.
Table 2's caption is confusing to read. I think this is because in most of what people write about around here, cross-context fusions are positively valenced by default, and “in the context of” doesn't quite capture the scenario. Something like “misapplying the mindset of one House while working for another” (emphasis on changes) would be much clearer.
I actually think that last one just sounds straightforwardly (hah) right? Note shapes express subdivisions of duration that correspond to common rhythmic structures of music, so if jazz music often uses an uneven subdivision at one level but follows the broad structure otherwise, then skewing the meaning of that level in the note shapes is bending the map toward the logical shape of the territory.
Is there a known etymology for these? Also, what do people think of as the existing native-sounding pair closest in meaning to this pair?
My guess would be that “din” is an abstraction of English “din” as in “noise”, and “kodo” might be via Japanese “鼓動” (kodō) = “beating” (especially including for heartbeats).