Sure and we'll solve all labor issues by just having people quit jobs with bad working conditions, solve car safety by having people just not buy cars that aren't safe enough in crashes, water safety by having everyone boil and filter their own water, and food safety by having everyone conduct their own restaurant inspections. All people have the resources and education to take part in these highly practical and efficient solutions.
How would you make it impossible? I was thinking that outlawing closed-source software would be a good first step, but that's relying on laws again...
Why do you think it just changes the lighting? Have you seen the demo? It's changing features including on people's faces. That's much more analogous to having ChatGPT redesign your models. The way it face-swaps the Resident Evil characters and a futbol player is downright comical.
He's a bit worse than Sam Altman, more like a vehicular Elizabeth Holmes.
It would actually be news if they *weren't* buying the location data openly available on the market.
The only way to fix this massive privacy problem is to make it illegal for companies to collect this information in the first place.
This. There's no need to embrace AI tools or add AI features. 99 times out of 100 the reason AI gets shoehorned into things is not functional, it's to impress investors, which all but a few open source projects don't have to worry about. Adding AI to an open source project is more likely to trigger a fork than prevent one.
I doubt many game developers would try doing that and I expect there would be a game dev campaign to ask gamers to turn DLSS5 off, much like the movie industry with motion smoothing. With this technology the look of the finished human-made artwork would just be a visual prompt for DLSS5 to imagine a replacement for. Developers would have to try making a character face that DLSS5 turns into a different face that looks like what they had in mind...good luck with that.
It's not just a tool to handle lighting and it's not better, it's different, in a way that most people don't think is better. Some people prefer their games to look like games and how the developers intended, rather than like AI-generated artwork even if it has more detail that was never intended to be there and more photorealistic lighting even if that wasn't the game's intended art style.
Since deep-learning super-sampling (DLSS) launched on 2018's RTX 2080 cards, gamers have been generally bullish on the technology as a way to effectively use machine-learning upscaling techniques to increase resolutions or juice frame rates in games.
I know I'm far from the only person who didn't like earlier versions of DLSS making games look like animated oil paintings, much less the latest one making them look like Sora videos.
There's already alternative software available already:
(Don't worry it slightly predates AI, just contains today's mandatory buzzwords)
This ever-escalating difficulty of rooting is why I think Android isn't worth saving as a general-purpose OS. This isn't a fight free software can win or should expend too much effort on. Google's going to continue tightening their coils as they always have until the only practical option is to replace mainstream Android with something different to the point of major incompatibility if you don't want a walled-garden toy OS, so I say we should get out ahead of them with something GNU/Linux-based.
It is not sentence generation or regurgitation.
But that's the problem, it is regurgitation, even if a targeted one from a vast array of stomach contents. You've been fooled by a stochastic parrot. Is it a breakthrough in human/computer interface if the human's input has a high likelihood of coming out mangled for reasons we can't understand or automatically correct? Is it really conversing with humans by spewing out a statistically likely response it has no real understanding of, or is it just running the latest successor to ELIZA?
With AI's ability to produce nonsensical mistakes due to having no concept of factuality or ability to actually reason about problems rather than clumsily dice them into steps (all describing what's commonly known as "hallucinations") its tendency to make mistakes will always make it borderline-useless for real work.
I like to say that the only time it makes sense to use AI for a task is if you have no time to do it yourself and no choice but to make an attempt at it very quickly. If a madman is holding a gun to your head and wants a full report on a book he hands you that you've never seen or heard of before within the next 5 minutes or you're dead, that would be a good time to use AI. Otherwise, why roll the dice with unpredictable, incomprehensible wrongness?
The downside is that once system is automated with AI, it is not typically designed for manual review and/or intervention. So AI mistakes tend to be hard to fix, because there is no built-in mechanism to trigger manual review of the results.
Hard to fix, hard to catch, hard to predict, often hard to understand in retrospect. What could possibly go wrong? Let's trust it with our medical paperwork!
This guy is a real-life cyberpunk villain, I'm not surprised in the slightest to hear that he owns a bunch of ghost kitchens.
"GPS software" you say? Does that work indoors unlike the GPS hardware laptops usually don't have?
Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce
