Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
So far. Since Terminators are capable humanoid robots and the goal is to make capable humanoid robots each improvement is going to look more like a Terminator. And also like every other capable humanoid robot from other sci-fi as well, good bad or neutral.
The only reason to leap to “OMG it’s a Terminator!” Is to bait the clicks.
This just in: single-issue activist explains why one issue is the only issue that should be considered in future planning.
Wheeled robots have been the norm for decades, we didn’t skip that.
You have an overly broad definition of “doomsday machine.”
I’d say “found the bot”, but even bots are familiar with why boobs appeal to human sensibilities.
What clickbait. Apparently any vaguely capable humanoid robot is a “straight-up Terminator”?
No, as I said courts have been ruling the opposite. The act of training an AI is fair use. There have been cases where other acts of copyright violation may have occurred before getting to that step (for example, the download of pirated ebooks by Meta has been alleged and is going to trial) but the training itself is not a copyright violation.
You can argue about ethics separately but if you’re going to invoke copyright then that’s a question of law, not ethics.
Does that matter? There have been several major court cases at this point that have established that training an AI is fair use.
That’s not reflected in the music billboards or the traffic going to various AI providers.
Or, it’s a way to generate songs about whatever topic or in whatever style that you personally are interested in. That’s what I use it for.
Philosophically, people can always come up with differences to fret about. Philosophers have argued for millennia about things that are impossible to ever detect empirically.
Practically, no.
AI tools can be trained and run locally by individuals, not just by corporations.
There are plenty of movies where the CGI is creating elements that could well be real, like people or buildings. There was a movie recently where rather than go through the legal hassle of having live horses on set they just CGIed every last shot that contained a horse, even if they were just standing around in the background. You’ve no doubt watched plenty of CGI imagery that you had no idea was CGI. It looked good, that was all.
When you watch a movie with computer-generated special effects, are you happy watching a lie?
If 97% of listeners can’t tell the difference then I’m not sure the point of quibbling the definition.
Unless you enjoy music regardless of whether it’s AI generated, in which case the future’s going to have way more options.
It’s also going to make it really easy to take down the content you don’t like, just accuse it of being AI and watch the witch hunting roll in. I’ve seen plenty of examples of traditional artists getting accused of using AI in other forums, I don’t imagine this will be any different.
So “I know it when I see it” rules, rather than anything rigorously defined.
Assuming this gets any traction at all the witch hunts will be rampant.
It’s a complex tapestry. They hate Jews in relation to Christians. They hate poor people in relation to first-world nations like Israel. And they hate Muslims in relation to everyone else (aside from a few of the really rich ones, I guess). So no wonder it gets a bit tangled for them.
Yeah, I was going to recommend this one too. IMO one of the more realistic depictions of how memory-editing technology would work, at least in terms of what the technical requirements would be. All the inside-the-head stuff was just good cinema, not necessarily realistic.