The statement is:

So smarter than the smartest human. I think it already is for a particular definition of smart, for example if you want to know facts it can probably answer questions on a wider variatey of facts than any human without internet access, but so can google.

Its about levels. Things like Dr Who taking Davros out of a wheel chair and stopped him being disfigured because you can't have a handicapped evil person.

Its their show so they can do what they want, but I also don't have to watch it.

Although the whole woke thing is just conjecture, I do find nothing new that really interests me, and from the statistic it would seem I am not alone.

For me there is nothing wrong with woke in a show but when its always there it gets boring, is it other things like stretching a story that could be told in 1 episode over 8? Is it the high likelihood of a show being canceled after the first season? Is it comedies that just seem to be an angry political rant as opposed to being just ludicrous like old shows.

More research needs to be done to determine the exact cause the the statistic does give an indicator that something is seriously wrong with the quality of new shows.

Why is making your entire act a problem, there are Elvis impersonators who their entire act is impersonating Elvis.

Does it detract from Elvis, does it mean people listen to less Elvis, or watch less of his movies, most probably not.

As long as you are clear you are not the real thing then I see no problem with it.

While it would be nice if artist stop needing middle men to create, I highly doubt it will happen that way. The rich will put in place systems that will make it very hard to produce this without them.

I thought this when I first saw the internet, writers would be able to publish their books without publishers, singers would be able to do so with songs, or movies.

We have that but middle men still taking the lions share or the profit.

I don't think its like self driving cars at all, because self driving cars have jump straight to being better than humans, or even better than that because I don't think psychologically we are willing to accept a random death from a self driving car over one inflicted by our own stupidity.

But in art the consequences are much less, so what if you have an extra finger, something doesn't quite make sense so it can become better over time.

Would I let AI write a life support system software, hell no. Would I let it write a movie or a song, sure why not at worst it will suck.

If that was the case why would you start from the beginning, not the point at which you are capable of running that simulation? Unless you have time travel so you can change the past, in that case why do you care about the heat death of universe anyway, just revers time.

The key words I think are quality and public, sure there is a large amount of data most of it utter rubbish, or scams. The irony is while the internet has large amounts of data, its become harder to get hold of quality data, without paying a subscription to something, even then no guarantee. Sure it maybe out there somewhere for free but unless you are an expert in the field how do you wade through all of the nonsense. For example before I would go to a recipe book which first listed the ingredients and then the instructions, not I get the life story of the recipe before I even start. Or a 10 minute video of how do a simple thing on a computer, that could be explained in a paragraph of text, usually out of date since Microsoft insists on moving all of its settings around every few years.

Also making your product worse sells more products, if your washing machine only needs replacing every 25 years then you only get to sell one every 25 years to that person, if it lasts 5 then more 5 times the sales. I have literally gone in the shop to ask which toaster is the best quality, and the shop assistant simply said I don't know, they are all the same people only buy on appearance.

Nice attempt to shut people who object down, Any one who doesn't object to killing witches must be a witch.

Let me do the same to you, anyone who objects so strongly is over compensating, just like people who objected to gay people turned out to be gay.

In reality I don't know you, and you don't know me I have no idea about who you are attracted to and vice versa. You clearly have strong opinions on the matter, I personally disagree I don't think we should kill anyone unless there is no practical alternative. But morality is very subjective and people can have different opinions, I think we as a society should accept that.

I personally don't think you should have been band, in my opinion forums are a place for people to discuss ideas, some of them I don't like and disagree with but then I have a choice not to listen or read them.

I noticed you didn't include killing babies in that list.

Yeah that would work well, convict someone of being a pedophile, immediate deaf sentence, if the judge is wrong then they get killed. All I can see is no judge ever convicting someone of being a pedophile. Yeah I know its probably a jury trial but then are you going give the death sentence to the jury?

It wasn't just a stollen car, it was a carjacking with use of a firearm, aka armed robbery.

My god where can't wait to by shares /sarcasm.

However this is not unusual, may tech companies don't a profit.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

Its an old story I do believe tesla makes a profit now the point still stands its not unusual.

To me your comment shows just accurate the sarcasm is, unless you are rightist and saying that its true. Both sides believe they are right.

I have herd left leaning politicians say in order to address climate change we first must address inequality, that is a huge leap, in fact killing off a large portion of the worlds population would help significantly.

I have never heard one politician on either side say we should stop traveling, reduce expenditure, stop sporting events. No its just increase spending, on the things they believe in, therefore worsen climate change in they area they believe in necessary. Frankly everyone in rich countries need to consume less, aka be poor to address climate change, alternatively a lot of people have to die, I prefer the former choice.