Maybe you've seen stuff and not realized it was AI generated. I've clicked on stuff supposedly by Jordan Peterson or Peter Zeihan for instance, and something wasn't right. At first I was wondering what gives? Then I figured out, or somebody in the comments figured out for me, that it was AI generated slop. Now I spot that kind of stuff easily, but it's annoying to even waste a fraction of a second looking at it to figure out it's slop and move on.
They're cheap. They even have a socket for an audio jack.
While Google's AlphaGo could be (sic) humans in a game with "a small, limited set of rules," the article points out that tthe (sic) real world "is bounded only by the laws of physics. Modelling the entirety of the real world is well beyond today's machines,
Even us humans may never understand a world 'bounded only by the laws of physics'. But, we don't know that much about how biological brains work yet, and I don't think we can expect to simulate them until we do. It's by understanding real brains that we might get that 'new idea' to incorporate into our computers.
Some of us Americans care about suffering even among people who aren't American, even the billions of non-Americans who are living in developing countries whose children may grow up shy of their intellectual potential.
An important word in the quote from the original article is 'if'. That is, "if you define art
I was thinking about two famous English painters from the 19th century, J. M. W. Turner, and Edwin Landseer. Landseer was enormously popular in his day, and there are probably still a lot of people who would prefer him to Turner. But Turner introduced something new and fresh. A.I., as it currently exists, could at best, emulate a Landseer, but not a Turner.
if you define art more broadly as an attempt to say something about the wider world, to express one's own sensibilities and anxieties and feelings, then AI art must fall short, because no machine mind can have that urge â" and perhaps never will.
That pretty much sums it up. AI collects what already exists, but doesn't go into new territory. People mostly like what's familiar, and the new, most creative Art often makes them uncomfortable at first.
AI, as it exists now, is a long way from what I would call real AI. That will require some fundamental breakthroughs in how brains actually work.
My setup is similar. No TV at all, just my regular old monitor, and a computer running linux, but it also serves for getting OTA TV via an ATSC tuner. (I have both a hauppauge and an HDhomerun. I have a little old beaglebone running linux that gets TV content from the hdhomerun via curl. This is my VCR that I program to record shows via cron/at. Then I sftp them to my big computer for viewing.)
I came of age in the 60s. As a child growing up in a Southern State I remember segregation as there being restrooms and drinking fountains marked 'colored' and 'white'. My high school got its 1st black students when I was a senior. I saw the first Beatles performance on the Ed Sullivan show while in High School, saw the 1st Moon landing on TV in a Navy barracks. I remember how I disliked Nixon when he was running for President against Eugene McCarthy, but McCarthy was just impossibly 'leftist' for me. I thought Ed Muskie of Maine should have been the Democratic Candidate but somehow, the Republicans sabotaged Muskie's campaign. Then the Watergate Scandal came along and Nixon was forced to resign.
None of that compares to what's happening now. But I think there are a collection of things that have happened to tear everything down. Social Media in general has not been the blessing we thought it would be. The old News Media for all its faults and claims of bias, was more responsible and objective than what we get from the braying, jackass amateurs posting so called news now. Manipulators in Russia, China, North Korea and probably other places are getting more and more sophisticated in planting stories and influence. Russia has actually been doing this a long time, fomenting Racial unrest as far back as the 1960s for example, as documented in a book called The Mitrokhin Archive.
I think part of the problem has just been too much success. The USA has been so successful that it's grown soft in some way. Too many people grow up unaware of some of the harsh realities of the world. They have theories about how the world should be without awareness of the practice. (See my sig for my take on theory and practice.)
Do most men even have AI girlfriends (or boyfriends) in the 1st place? The headline is designed to scare, not inform.
The thing that seems to be missing is a really permanent storage tech. When CDs first came out, it seemed like this might be it, a permanent archival technology. Apparently, the CDs (and later DVDs) turned out not to be so permanent. Now, tape seems to be considered the best but, as you say, it's expensive and not for the home user.
There's two parts to the archiving issue. One, something that doesn't degrade, and second, something where equipment to read the stuff will still be around. Imagine finding an old VHS tape that you thought had been lost with some precious family videos on it, but no VHS player to play and watch it, and no TV or monitor with composite input to display the signal even if you had such a player.
The people who already have wealth and power always control who joins the club, no matter what system or society you live in. Limited liability companies do not offer anything special in that regard.
Look at history. Look at how much progress and innovation and how many people rise from humble origins to wealth in countries with Limited Liability Companies and compare that to the wealth and social mobility of Countries without it.
In theory I suppose that's true. In practice, there would always be some risk when providing money to someone else. (See my signature on theory and practice.)
If I understand you right, assuming 100% of the risk and getting 100% of the reward is basically venture capitalists becoming lenders, getting back loan plus interest instead of a percentage of the profits if any, and nothing if there are no profits.
The first amphibian that crawled up on land probably couldn't walk (or even crawl) all that well. The first bird that flew probably couldn't fly all that well. We're the first species to come up with this thing we call civilization. How good do you think we are at it? How good should you expect us to be at it?
Maybe we could evolve and perfect ourselves, but I don't know if the planet is big enough to allow us room for that. Darwinian Evolution, as I understand it, is actually pretty messy, with a lot of failures for each success.
One could drill down in one's thoughts to deeper philosophical questions about what's the point of it all. Not sure if that's a good idea though.
I don't think I've drunk any vodka in this millenium, but back in the 1980s I hit the clubs pretty often and I was particularly fond of Stoli bloody marys. (That is, if they were made right, with horseradish, pepper and each bartender had their secret ingredients). Anyway, what I learned via a lot of trial and error, was that stoli vodka was the only hardstuff (I didn't just drink vodka) that didn't give me a hangover the next day. And that included other vodkas.
I guess the main purpose of my post was to raise the question of whether factors besides purely economic factors in the classic sense, should be considered. In the process of raising the question I was not also trying to answer it. Which is why I made the deliberately weak suggestion that it was 'plausible'.
BTW I personally am not trying to promote tariffs. But I am somewhat concerned about the USA being too dependent on not very friendly foreign powers.
Deliver yesterday, code today, think tomorrow.
