Acting - as part of "the arts" - is more play than work for the people who do it. That merits not automating it because without enjoyable things to do, we become nothing but consumption machines.
Why should the movie studio executives, board of directors, or shareholders care? To them, it's a business to maximize profit. You can do that if using AI costs less than paying actors.
What if nobody implemented it?
Then Microsoft and Apple among others would be fined per day until they implemented it; or perhaps even being held in contempt of court if the government sued them and won up to and including jail time for executives; or given the current regime, being designated a supply chain risk.
Even if the companies eventually prevail in court, most wouldn't want the hassle or being on the bad side of Orange Man.
There are sites I like and do not block ads because I want them to be around, and in the end they either need to paywall or run ads to stay in business.
But the company whose ad it is has already paid to be shown on the site, hasn't it? Why should they care whether I choose to block ads via my browser? I'm never going to click on any as anyway.
Grok was constantly say it was doing something that it had ZERO ability to, and I kept calling it out and it kept apologizing and then immediately doing it again.
As a guy who spend 5 figures a year on Ai, the last thing I want is that. I know Claude and ChatGPT also do it, but Grok was doing it CONSTANTLY.
If an LLM regurgitates your code verbatim (or really close so it could reasonably be considered a derivative work) and it's uncredited, then it's copyright infringement and also plagiarism.
And a douche bag of a president who drops bombs next to schools and kills 135 kids . Should resign on the spot for that.
Look up "human shields", the practice of siting military targets among (or in or under) large collections of non-military civilians, in order to deter strikes against them or produce propaganda claims of atrocities when they're attacked anyhow.
In such situations the fault for the "collateral damage" is assigned to the side that set up the arrangement, not the side that hit it.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the US has been trying very hard to use precision munitions and extreme military intelligence to take out military targets with as little harm to the innocents they're embedded among as possible, with impressive success. Compare the amount of collateral damage in this war to any of those conducted in the 20th century.
He's doing the bare minimum sniff test of verifying that *you* are the guy whose name is on the bookings and not someone sneaking in on someone else's name who can't even pronounce the name on your fake id.
At least in the case of people claiming to be returning citizens I've been told that they're comparing your accent to your claimed residence (or residence history).
Different words are acquired at different ages, and many are pronounced with regional variations. An expert can talk to you for a few minutes and come up with a pretty good age-map of where you lived as you grew up. An agent with a modicum of training can detect a mismatch between how you pronounce certain words and your claimed residence and pass you through quickly or keep you around and drill more deeply. (If you now live in an area with a regional accent wildly different from where you grew up it can help to answer a where-do-you-reside question with "Footown, but I grew up in Barstate".)
I presume they are doing something similar, though no doubt with lower resolution, on the world-wide level for visitors from other countries.
This will not end well.
Why is this a problem?
I do not want my software censoring anything I make.
Neoliberalism and liberalism are two totally different things.
An algorithm must be seen to be believed. -- D.E. Knuth
