This bill seems somewhat misguided. How in the hell is something like a large language model going to cause a mass casualty incident? What I am more worried about is things that could more realistically pose a danger. What if robotic dogs patrolling the border have machine guns mounted on their backs, then a child does something unexpected and the robot wipes out an entire family? What if a self driving car suddenly takes off at full speed through a parade? They are trying to slot AI into everything now, and it will inevitably end up in some places that are going to cause loss of life. But chatbots? Give me a break.
Yeah my friend got a Dreamcast and then I pirated all the games for him. It was one of the most awesome consoles ever with amazing games. But the few other people I knew with one at the time also pirated games. It was just so easy because it didn’t even need a modchip or anything. Just download, burn a CD, and play.
Per the software website (which the article links to), I don’t see any mention of generative AI. Their “ai image intelligence” only makes mention of tagging images for SEO. https://www.pixometry.com/en/publishing/ai-image-intelligence/
So they used AI to determine this? So I’m sure the result must be totally accurate.
What else does the article say? Hmmm let’s see. “The researchers found that Sky was also reminiscent of other Hollywood stars, including Anne Hathaway and Keri Russell. The analysis of Sky often rated Hathaway and Russell as being even more similar to the AI than Johansson.” Alright that proves it! Clearly this voice was based on Scarlett Johansson!
I’ve probably been subscribing to Netflix for a decade now, but this is the largest price increase they have ever done on the basic plan, and this is the first time I have seriously started to consider cancelling.
I need to go through my list and figure out what I really want to watch, and then just binge it. (I have never binge watched anything, but this is giving me an actual incentive to)
I’ve already been using the fakespot extension for a few years, and honestly, it feels pretty useless. I’ve seen it give A and B scores for products that I know have fake reviews. And on Amazon or Walmart and similar sites, we already know that the reviews are bullshit, so what difference does it really make for it to tell me that? It’s not like I have any better option in most cases.
I’m kind of mixed on this, because I think AI art is pretty cool, but I also hate our current copyright system. I kind of agree with the copyright office that images generated by a prompt should not be covered by copyright. What if I just type in “cat” and set the seed to 1, and try to copyright that? What if I copyright the image for EVERY seed with that prompt? Literally anyone else could easily generate the exact same image, and are they going to be in violation of my copyright now?
It gets really complicated though. What if I draw a sketch and then feed it into stable diffusion to flesh it out further? Then I do extensive inpainting across the whole thing, then I take it to Photoshop and do further edits. At this point, I think it’s fair to say this is an original image of my own creation, which should be eligible for copyright protection.
But according to the article, it wasn’t generated in minutes. The artist went through over 600 iterations of tweaking the prompt to get what he wanted. Sounds like days or even weeks of work probably. And then made additional tweaks via Photoshop.
Not too say that makes it any more impressive, but it wasn’t something that was without effort.
I think it’s fair to require disclosure. However, they don’t really go into much detail about what is considered AI. So for example, if I use Photoshop’s ‘content aware fill’ tool on a piece of artwork, would I need to disclose that the project used AI? What about if I simply upscale a piece of artwork that I drew? As tools involving some sort of machine learning become more common, it’s eventually going to just become a given that AI has been used at some point in a workflow.
I mean, is this really about ai? Or is this just standard digital effects stuff? It feels like AI is getting thrown around everywhere just because it’s the hot buzzword that will get clicks.
I mean, they scan someone’s body, then just map it onto a 3d model that has been motion captured from another extra. No “ai” really needs to be involved there.
Of course, from the actor’s perspective, there is no difference, they still don’t get any follow up work.
I get like 20mbps down and it’s fine. Netflix only recommends 15 Mbps for 4k streaming. Lol, looking at websites and stuff is certainly not a problem. About the only time speed has ever been an issue is if I need to download a large game on steam. But I attribute that more to developers just being too lazy to actually optimize their games. I shouldn’t need to download 50 gigabytes to play some game when I’m just running at medium settings.
Wow that’s actually pretty cool. I wonder how many paper authors will actually be looking at it though.