> I may eventually get to the wall label part but this is tough.
That wall label was an indirection itself.
To be fair, they did warn at the top: I was asked to speak to you about how [...] AI technologies might inpact the ways in which museum collections are managed. I am going to take a round-about route to get there.
So not wall labels, midway down is: Wall labels, then, are not really the problem. They are the symptom of some broader challenges with the way that museums are organized and the ways in which they get things done.
If you search for those sentences and read the 4 paragraphs above it, you get the condensed version of the problem facing museum data. Basically, they have collections management systems but no one wants to do a bunch of data entry, and when they do, they don't use standards, or consistent naming conventions or semantic labeling for it. And points out: These are not technical problems.
The tie in to how ML/AI can help is a couple paragraphs below it. Basically, please don't use AI to generate narrative wall labels even if the curators are too lazy to organize their collections of researched object information. Also, don't hook commercial LLMs and chatbots to the collections management systems, which contain personal and private donor data. Do use text and image recognition for extracting structured data and object tagging -- for internally use only, and reviewed by humans -- and add it to the museums collection management system.
It was around the "10,000 unlabeled pieces of paper" part that my question became, "is it really important to save all this?" Especially in the context of a design museum that isn't particularly interested in unique works?
I agree that AI should not be used "if the curators are too lazy to organize their collections of researched object information." Just get rid of it. Boom. Done.
I appreciate people that archive and preserve things but that makes a lot more sense when there's like 5 scrolls to be found from an entire century. In the world of infinite data streams there's an almost comical futility to it imo. If the people don't care enough about it, using AI to create more volumes of data on it is just wild.
> If the people don't care enough about it, using AI to create more volumes of data on it is just wild.
They do care about it—they cared about it enough to get it, store it, preserve it. But they’re not good at storing the context around it—it’s like they care about it, but don’t care about why they care about it?
> Curation nowadays is about the purge, the filter.
I agree there’s value in that, but there’s also value in understanding the meaning behind what we keep.
I often have a vision in my head of a library (museum?) archive in a basement. Every so often someone comes down with some books that they want to keep but don't know exactly what to do with at the moment. Over time, of course, it becomes a big mess that is useful to nobody, and the task of making it useful grows and grows.
I think this applies to a lot of things in contemporary life. Today, we can always move forward. Everything around us is pulling us forward. The tendency to hold onto things makes sense, but it's largely becoming hoarding. If you're saving something, you should be damn sure that it's special and you're doing it for a reason, with intention and follow through. Otherwise, just move on, let it go.
I am not a supporter of most things this admin is doing, but also wouldn't be too sure on this one. I found it interestingly odd that out of nowhere he makes a comment on the deal after attending an event dealing with celebrating music and film. A regular shakedown would have happened before the deal when he met with the Netflix CEO recently, which the added link article mentions and was a person who Trump liked.
And now we see the Paramount thing that leads me to think it fits more with the suggestion that he takes the side of the last person he speaks with, which was probably someone at the same event on the paramount side.
I wouldn't rule out that he now plays them against each other in order to get something from it, but don't think it was the original reason for helping to throw a wrench into it
I vaguely remember a site where you could watch random people live streaming their programming environment, but I think twitch ate it, or maybe it was twitch -- not sure, but was interesting
Under the other photos it says A photo taken by a BBC North West Tonight reporter showed the bridge is undamaged and A BBC North West reporter visited the bridge today and confirmed it was undamaged
They may have first ran the photo through an AI, but they also went out to verify. Or ran it after verification to understand it better, maybe
So.. is this where the AI hype train starts to lose steam? One AI hallucinated and caused the incident, and another AI program just wasted everyone's time after it was unable to verify the issue. Sounds like AI was utterly useless to everyone involved.
> Sounds like AI was utterly useless to everyone involved
Maybe.
Imo, I think the advances in AI and the hype toward generated everything will actually be the current societies digitally-obsessed course-correction back to having a greater emphases on things like theater, live music, conversing with people in-person or even strangers (the horror, I know) simply to connect/consume more meaningfully. It'll level out integrating both instead of being so digitally loop-sided as humans adapt to enjoy both.*
To me, this shows a need for more local journalism that has been decimated by the digital world. By journalism, I mean it in a more traditional sense, not bloggers and podcast (no shade some follow principled, journalistic integrity -- as some national "traditional" one don't). Local journalism is usually held to account by the community, and even though the worldwide BBC site has this story, it was the local reporters they had that were able to verify. If these AI stories/events accelerate a return to local reporting with a worldwide audience, then all the better.
* I try to be a realist, but when I err, it tends to be on the optimist side
The tech giants sucking up all the ad revenue is what killed local journalism. Unless you can find a solution to that problem (or an alternstove fundong model), it's not coming back.
But just think of all the people that didn’t have to receive a paycheck because of all this efficiency!
It’s really incredible how the supposedly unassailable judgement of mass consumer preference consistently leads our society to produce worse shit so we can have more or it, and rewards the chief enshittifiers with mega yachts.
The point they made about grade school, to me, points more towards early recognition now leads to more kids having a shot at top schools.
Not because they have a 'disability' or a particular type of accommodation, but because it was caught early enough and worked with by people that cared, that now they have a model for learning that better suits them. It was never an issue with intelligence, only that some of us* run into walls because the standard learning lane is pretty narrow. Crashing into those walls in grade school is likely what kept many people* from going to top colleges (or any college) -- but now that it's better understood and worked with at an early age we are seeing people show up who can do the same correct work, but do it in a way that's different.
* Im also dyslexic, but from the days that wasn't a thing in my mediocre public school. I was simply a slow reader that couldn't spell (or pronounce or "sound out" words) or read out loud, but somehow had high scores in other language/comprehension test.
> Are you willing to pony up more of your income for taxes?
The taxes don't have to come from income, there were plenty of tax cut extensions + some new ones that could have been let go without increasing the individual upper-middle-to-lower wealth class taxes and greatly cut down budget deficit with the increased revenue. Instead the extensions of the 2017 cuts are going add some 3.7 trillion over the next 10 years.
> Not really a great example to showcase how to advocate one "argue the facts of an issue"
Au contraire. Exactly the people that keep ruining proper debate. People who are unable to discuss facts but try so very very hard to construe other people's factual comments as attacks on someone, somewhere, and therefore 'bad' and worthy of censorship.
> A safety net and family resources correlate with nothing related to entrepeneurship and risk taking
You might be on to something, just look at the examples here. Being successful in tech and a well-known risk taker seems strongly related to having a 4-5 letter last name. Bezos, Brin, Dell, Gates, Page, Jobs, Musk, Thiel...Zuckerberg, okay an outlier, but everyone just says Zuck -- so tossup?/s
That wall label was an indirection itself.
To be fair, they did warn at the top: I was asked to speak to you about how [...] AI technologies might inpact the ways in which museum collections are managed. I am going to take a round-about route to get there.
So not wall labels, midway down is: Wall labels, then, are not really the problem. They are the symptom of some broader challenges with the way that museums are organized and the ways in which they get things done.
If you search for those sentences and read the 4 paragraphs above it, you get the condensed version of the problem facing museum data. Basically, they have collections management systems but no one wants to do a bunch of data entry, and when they do, they don't use standards, or consistent naming conventions or semantic labeling for it. And points out: These are not technical problems.
The tie in to how ML/AI can help is a couple paragraphs below it. Basically, please don't use AI to generate narrative wall labels even if the curators are too lazy to organize their collections of researched object information. Also, don't hook commercial LLMs and chatbots to the collections management systems, which contain personal and private donor data. Do use text and image recognition for extracting structured data and object tagging -- for internally use only, and reviewed by humans -- and add it to the museums collection management system.
reply