In order to tell OpenAI to stop crawling a website and thus not use the content for training GPT, OpenAI now supports to disallow GPTBot from accessing your site.
The Information can be found on the GPTBot – OpenAI API website:
Completely disallow GPTBot:
User-agent: GPTBot
Disallow: /Allow/disallow certain parts of a website:
User-agent: GPTBot
Allow: /directory-1/
Disallow: /directory-2/For WordPress sites, I can recommend the Virtual Robots.txt – plugin.
I often just use one of the in-ears of my Jabra 75T. Recently I figured out that when I use both in-ears headphones, the right one was significantly louder than the left one. After a quick hearing test, I was convinced that it is not a problem with my hearing but with one of the headphones.
After some back and forth, the easiest solution was:
Simply hard reset the headphones in 2 simple steps:
reconnect to your phone and done.
Don’t look for balance / equalizer apps etc. Just a waste of time.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) text generation is the process of using algorithms and machine learning models to generate written content automatically. This technology has advanced rapidly in recent years, with models like OpenAI’s GPT-3 capable of producing human-like text with astonishing accuracy.
Blogging has become a popular platform for individuals and businesses to share their ideas, opinions, and experiences with the world. However, blogging just occasionally can be a challenging task. It requires getting into the writing flow, writing cohesively throughout an article, crafting a proper introduction, and ensuring the use of correct grammar and vocabulary. For non-native English speakers, it can be even more challenging to write in a language that is not their mother tongue. The lack of proper vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure can hinder their writing ability and prevent them from expressing their thoughts effectively.
Fortunately, AI-assisted writing can help bloggers overcome these obstacles. By using AI tools, bloggers can speed up their writing process and produce high-quality content with minimal effort. The AI algorithms can assist in crafting a proper introduction, developing an overall structure for the article, and suggesting vocabulary and grammar improvements. With the assistance of AI, bloggers can focus more on the substance of their content and spend less time on the technical aspects of writing.
In conclusion, AI text generation can be a game-changer for bloggers looking to improve their writing efficiency and effectiveness. It can help bloggers overcome the challenges of writing, especially for non-native English speakers, and ultimately lead to more diverse and meaningful content on the internet. AI-assisted writing can be a powerful tool that offers a unique opportunity to bring the voices of non-native English speakers into the blogosphere and spread knowledge, ultimately benefiting society as a whole.
Disclaimer: This text was produced with AI-assisted writing but was carefully revised manually to express what I wanted to say.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been transforming various industries, and the photography and graphics industry is no exception. With the development of AI image generation tools, it is now possible to create realistic images that are indistinguishable from those captured by a camera or created by a human designer. While this technology holds immense potential for businesses in terms of cost and time efficiency, it will also bring about significant changes in the industry and its related sectors.
One of the most notable impacts of AI image generation technology is the potential to disrupt the traditional photography and graphics business models. With AI, it is possible to create high-quality images without the need for expensive equipment or professional photographers. This could mean that smaller businesses and individuals will be able to produce high-quality images at a fraction of the cost, leading to a shift in the balance of power within the industry.
While this shift may benefit smaller players in the industry, it also raises concerns about the future of traditional photography and graphics companies, including the studios, models, and makeup artists who have long been the backbone of the industry. As AI technology advances, it is expected that the demand for traditional jobs in the industry will decrease, leading to potential job losses for those who are unable to adapt to the new reality.
Moreover, AI tools are capable of compensating for years of education and experience, which means that it will not be necessary to pay for the same skill level as before. This will likely have a negative impact on the salaries of senior experts who have spent decades honing their craft. Even though new jobs may be created in the AI and machine learning sector, these will be in a completely different know-how sector than that of traditional photography and graphics roles. This means that the transition from one sector to the other may be challenging for those who are affected.
Especially with the overwhelming speed of development, those affected by this change will be outpaced, and even if they can pivot, it may take some time to acquire the required skills. The gap in this transition phase does not bode well for those affected, and there is a real risk that people who are laid off will not be trained or upskilled but simply replaced by AI.
While new jobs may be created in the AI sector, these will likely require a different set of skills and expertise than those currently in demand in the traditional photography and graphics industry. This means that the affected individuals may not be able to transition easily into these new roles, leading to potential unemployment and displacement.
In conclusion, while AI image generation technology holds immense promise for the photography and graphics industry, it also raises concerns about the potential disruption of traditional business models and the displacement of workers in related sectors. It is important to recognize the value of human insight and creativity in shaping the way we use and adapt to these technologies, and to invest in the training and upskilling of those who may be affected by these changes. As we move forward in the age of AI, we must work to ensure that the benefits of these technologies are shared equitably, and that no one is left behind.
Disclaimer: The essence of this article originates from a human. The full article was produced with the assistance of AI writing through various revisions. AI helped to formulate the ideas, thoughts, and facts into proper English. While the article was reviewed by a human, there may still be errors or biases present. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of the AI language model or its creators.
There have been plenty of articles and comments about the (dis)advantages of home office vs in-office scenarios over the past two years. One critical aspect of home-office is definitely about creating a personal relationship with people that you never meet in person.
One situation where a personal relationship is quite important is an interview with candidates (be it internal or external). Besides the technical expertise you also want to know whether or not the candidate is a fit for the team. In the past 2+ years, we interviewed dozens of people for positions in the team. I say “we” because we usually are 2-3 internals holding different positions in the team (dev, ops, product owner, …) interviewing the new candidate. And in the past 2+ years we did all those interviews remotely via video-conferencing.
It took me 2 years until I realized remote interviews have another advantage.
just me
For me, it was never a question whether we do the interviews remotely or not as the situation didn’t offer any alternative. I also never complained about not meeting the person well … in-person. Of course, it would have been very nice to meet new people directly – just to feel the personal vibes. But the obvious advantage to easily interview people independent from their physical location is not the only one. It took me two years until I realized remote interviews have another advantage: There is no seating order / seating arrangement!
Imagine the last interview-situation with one candidate and 2+ interviewers. As soon as it is not a 1 to 1 interview anymore it quickly feels like a tribunal. Worst situation: a rectangular table with the interviewers on one side and the candidate on the other. Multiple 1-to-1-interiews might be more comfortable. But it is also interesting for the candidate to see the way how the interviewers interact with each other. And sometimes someone from HR just wants to attend.
So, what is the advantage of doing an Interview remotely via video conferencing? Well – it totally removes the seating / placement! What does that mean? Now all members in the situation are equally distributed. An “observer” (HR) can / should(!) turn off the camera and hide from the conversation. Depending on the software (s)he can also focus on certain people during the conversation. Last but not least – and maybe most important: The interviewer is in his/her own chosen safe place and has control over the situation. Ways more control than in a classical interview situation.
And – from my experience – it helps the candidate relax. And you want to experience a relaxed candidate in order to be able to meaningfully assess whether he or she fits into the team or not. Also, a relaxed candidate will surely perform more authentic and honest.
In the end I’m glad I realized this advantage of remote interviews!
Recently the term “Metaverse” is across like in every IT related news. Noone really knows what it is but it seems to be the hot shit you have to be into! And it seems to be THE ultimate solution for so many odd problems AND a totally new business market!
The “metaverse” topic has followed me now a couple of months and I had a couple of discussions already about my critical view about the topic. And if it was worth discussing so often – it might be worth writing it down as well. 😀
To make it simple: It’s a marketing term. An extremely fuzzy marketing term. I won’t do an intense review or aggregation about all the articles. Just do a search about “What is the metaverse“. A lot of explanations are horrifically vague.
Gartner writes it a bit incomprehensibly: “The Metaverse is a collective virtual open space, created by the convergence of virtually enhanced physical and digital reality. It is physically persistent and provides enhanced immersive experiences.” (Eh – WHAT?)
Wikipedia is very focused on AR and VR: “A metaverse is a network of 3D virtual worlds focused on social connection. In futurism and science fiction, it is often described as a hypothetical iteration of the Internet as a single, universal virtual world that is facilitated by the use of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) headsets.“
Wired.com states it pretty nicely: “Ninety percent of the time, the meaning won’t substantially change. That’s because the term doesn’t really refer to any one specific type of technology, but rather a broad (and often speculative) shift in how we interact with technology.”
Meanwhile I hear talks and presentations about Metaverse that simply span over all kinds of “new business models”, including VR, AR, digital assets (NFTs), and blockchain technology in general.
And sometimes “the Metaverse” is also used for a community of people with an interest in new technology / business / …
So … it’s about all and nothing.
In my opinion there are a couple of problems which I’ll outline a bit. The following listing doesn’t claim to be complete. It’s just a couple of problems that I came across recently:
As written above: The term is simply too vague! It describes all and nothing at the same time. For me it has evolved to a synonym for “modern computer stuff”.
Regarding all that I’ve seen so far – it’s just not new. The term itself isn’t new. AR and VR aren’t new. Niantic published the AR games Ingress in 2013 and Pokémon Go back in 2016.
Microsoft published the AR Headset Hololens in 2016 and found a niche in the business sector.
If you define “a metaverse” as a place where people come together in a virtual space in order to interact – congratulations, it’s there already as well: In fact, since the first Multiplayer Mode in any Game was introduced. In nowadays MMORPGs thousands of gamers come together in virtual worlds to interact, buy & sell virtual assets, chat, hangout, have fun together. World of Warcraft might be one of the best examples: Launched in 2004 it is still an active cash cow in 2022. And – according to GameRevolution.com – it has an impressive revenue: “At its best, it held North of 12 million paying customers, equating to roughly $180 million per month in subscription revenue, or $2.15 billion per year.”
Even Blockchain technology is not new. Bitcoin was first published in 2008 and had its breakthrough more or less already. The hype around NFTs has really taken off in 2021. It’s not yet clear if the NFT hype peak is already been passed or is yet soon to come.
The problem with AR and VR is that the devices are still ways too expensive and / or too inconvenient for long time usage. But the real issue in the consumer market is that there is still no the real killer application. True: there are VR games that seem to have an immense immersion effect (have just played a single one myself).
But still, it’s by for not the case that a game is per se a VR game. And this in a market with solvent customers (Gaming PCs, graphics cards, …) and a business case (the VR game). Of course, this may change when the hardware is getting cheaper and more convenient. – At some time in the future.
I’ve heard so often said that in “the metaverse” all kinds of digital assets can be imported from one world into another etc. Yet it’s never explained which worlds we are speaking about and where this would be applicable. – Except in Video Games – where it doesn’t make any sense if you invest just a minute to think about it. Game Two published an excellent ~1h discussion about this topic. That’s why I won’t go any deeper into it.
TL;DR: just no.
Most of the use cases that are presented have the simple problem that they do not solve a consumer or business problem. Instead, they highlight the use of fancy technology (usually blockchain / NFT). Hardly any consumer ever wanted to use a blockchain. People want problems solved or needs fulfilled not technology applied. Technology is just a tool to solve a problem. And in 99% of the cases you would not choose a blockchain due to its obvious disadvantages (which are also advantages at the same time).
Also, the example of a virtual world where people can buy houses and hang out. Sorry – we had this in Second Life. And it failed. Because there was no need fulfilled for any person (except journalists who didn’t realize World of Warcraft did a better job already).
As written above: the term “Metaverse” is extremely vague, it covers Software / Hardware / Technology / Cyberspace in general. – And with the naming “The Metaverse”, like there is just one, it creates the subtle illusion of an abstraction layer over all these technology and business cases. As if suddenly all those cases could play magically together, are interoperable, play fine into one big thing – the metaverse.
Doesn’t sound too bad, he? But by such a definition the whole internet as we know it through the browser would be the one of Googleverse (or Bingverse). Maybe more precise: all online shops would have to be the one of Amazonverse, Aliverse, Ottoverse. And all the Onlineshops would interact magically (payment, user accounts, returns, shipping) – which – they just don’t.
It’s just the same concept. It simply simplifies too much.
I’ve seen / heard SO many disruptive Metaverse use cases. Almost all cases so far were simply naive or the people presenting their idea had absolutely no idea of the business area that they want to disrupt. If you want to disrupt a business area it’s not enough to throw in new technology. You need to know all the players (stakeholders) in the field and identify whom you want to disrupt and why one or some other players have an advantage of it. If no one profits from the disruption, there is no business case.
Also, for every business case: always ask yourself: this sounds so obvious – there was really never ever someone before having this idea? And surprise: It’s not uncommon that companies tried this “disruption” before and failed. And in such cases: look carefully WHY they failed. Was it too early? Was it just bad luck?
Or: Did customers simply not want the product? (In that case: get your hands off!!)
Okay, this might be a personal thing. But Facebook rebranded itself to Meta and fired the Metaverse hype. Assuming the new business cases really do work etc. Do I want to have it brand-wise all connected to Facebook?
In parallel to the above: I don’t want to call every online shop “another Amazon”. It’s a drama already that “googling” became a synonym for “searching”. But I personally do not like to have Facebook standing as a brand over everything that relates to VR, AR, Blockchain, Virtual Worlds, …
Let’s make it short: No!
There are applications for AR.
There are applications vor VR.
Blockchain does have use cases.
NFTs do have use cases.
But I also do not see a Metaverse-Layer connecting all kinds of technology and businesses.
Well, I’m not particularly sure. But playing the sarcastic guy I would say:
Investors: Maybe you find a stupid investor that are totally blinded by the hype train. Maybe you have to have “Metaverse” somewhere in your pitch to be hot.
CEO / Management: If you want to sell a shitty product. Place Metaverse somewhere in your product presentation! It sounds awesomely modern! It makes the impression that you are totally interoperable (so cheap to integrate) and open a totally new business with lots of revenue. (Funnily the same story as “Data is the new Oil”)
Shareholders: If you have a big company, claim to do some Metaverse projects! You show that you are on the bleeding edge of technology! You are ahead of competitors.
Journalists: Ah well – Journalists should have learned from Second Life.
I don’t want to blame the time shift 2x a year. At least as long as I do not forget to change the time on my camera as well! As I am doing most of my photography on hikes and geo tag them afterwards, It makes quite a difference if the file creation time is right or wrong. – This year I forgot to change it on the camera and needed to bulk-change the file time later.
Luckily this is pretty easy using Windows Powershell and the Windows PowerShell ISE (Integrated Scripting Environment):
$files = Get-ChildItem "C:\Users\[....]\*.arw"
foreach ($f in $files){
$d1 = [System.IO.File]::GetCreationTime($f.FullName)
$d2 = $d1.addHours(1)
[System.IO.File]::SetCreationTime($f.FullName, $d2)
echo $d1
echo $d2
echo ---
}
Just copy it into the ISE, execute, done.
Do you know these horrible status meetings? Every week, every two weeks or – when it is critical – 2x a week? Especially with multiple members? And you never know whether it’s important to go there or not? But you need to go there because there might be a relevant information?
The myth: “If there’s nothing to say, we can quickly close the meeting after 5min”. Seriously – I’ve not seen this happen very often. It quickly drifts into a common chitchat or Q&A. Don’t get me wrong: socializing is important – but a status meeting isn’t a socializing event.
I had a couple of such meetings in the past. When it was just one it was okay – but as I got involved into multiple projects, my schedule started filling up with such kind of meetings. And this became very unsatisfying as it sucked a lot of my time – and even worse: It sucked a lot of overall team-time!
My advice: GET RID OF THOSE MEETINGS / OF THIS MEETING STYLE!
By applying some simple rules such meetings can become ways more effective. but beware … discipline is required.
Preparation:
Before the meeting:
During the meeting:
We do this since a couple of months. We follow these rules and have saved numerous hours of working time in the past! But it needs discipline – for sure.
I have been repeating this sentence more often than I’d like recently. But if the COID-19 time has taught me one thing very impressively, it is:
Rule 1: Forget rules which you cannot control or enforce
(Alternatively: “Do not hope for the sanity of your colleagues / fellows / …”)
Many of the COVID measures would certainly not have been necessary if “we all” had behaved reasonably. One could discuss the term “reasonable” right away. But “reasonable” unfortunately depends on personal goals. If the personal goals diverge, the opinion about “reasonable behavior” diverges as well. And suddenly “we all” do not have a common sense of what “reasonable behaviour” is. This discrepancy is then what is called a “conflict.”
So, if you are responsible for a system (the system does not even have to be technical – the “health care system” e.g.), you can hope for the sanity of the involved participants (users) and not impose any constraints / rules … This will most likely lead to a conflict. If the conflict has to be solved, you will generally be confronted with utmost gratitude and boundless cooperation (this was ironic, by the way).
No problem: just set up some rules … But rules only do make sense if you can control and enforce compliance with the rules. Because … honestly whenever we discover an inconvenient rule, we want to circumvent it. And we are creative 🙂
Rule 2: Only make rules whose compliance you can enforce and control.
If you find yourself in a position where you can detect a violation of a rule but cannot (anymore) react (or only with enormous effort). You are on lost ground and can do nothing but watch.
Rule 3: It should be clear to everyone how the enforcement will be done.
Rule 2.5: This is transparency.
The 3 rules sound trivial … but can also be very unpleasant if you have to write them down and communicate them. On the other side, you will have certain displeasure right away, but not later (or at least less because the rules were clear from the beginning). A user, on the other hand knows what (s)he is (not) allowed to do. And if there is the transparency about the consequences, the user can also decide for him-/herself whether to break a rule or not – but one cannot complain.
Many companies and executives thought COVID-19 and 100% HomeOffice would be a real challenge. Phew seems a lot of companies survived the Home-Office challenge! Companies have learnt that the business can continue. Employees have learnt that HomeOffice can work.
This was challenge 1: the technical challenge.
But now as companies slowly do not have to do HomeOffice anymore … now we will see what our bosses, executives and companies really think. How much they have really learned. How much trust there really is.
Now comes challenge 2: the people challenge.
The challenge might now be to keep people when a leader (or worse: a company culture) values presence (a.k.a counting sheep) over results – but employees don’t …
I’ll just stay at home and stay productive.