Come on, stop projecting. You simply are the same as the orange shitgibbon and co - not considering them Iranians human. And no walls of pretext and excuses can change that. You are the extremist who wants to exterminate others. And a disgusting one at that. Go spew your poison elsewhere.
That will trigger an invasion.
Except in this case it has nothing to do with the AI. Neither the orange shitgibbon nor his goons nor his buddies in Israel consider Iranians people.
No. I think hollywood has always been subversive and run by foreign pedophiles. For example, look for the interview with Shirley Temple about what they tried doing to her as a _child_,
I think it has produced enough pro-American-MIC films every now and then to stay out of more government trouble.
You usually don't realize (at the time) that the media you watched as a child was subverting you (and your parents desires). And unless you revisit those films a generation later with a critical eye, you may not realize it ever.
But that's how the ratchet effect works. The newer media that is now visibly odious to me is only visibly odious to me because it is targeting the edge of an overton window that has continued moving since my own youth. The leading edge of socially allowable media subversion continues to advance until a historical reset event sets it back somewhat. Or, sometimes, when there is sufficient market rejection.
In the case of hollyweird, the concentration of power has significant drawbacks; destroying that concentration of power will probably be a net benefit. (to be clear, I think It will amplify other problems instead).
In general, I think evil seems to be more effective when it is centralized and powerful, with captured institutions, while maintaining the ability to operate openly, and has de-facto monopoly control over the domain in which it operates, and when most people do not understand what is being done to them.
And it is fine that way. They are not supposed to be creative, that is not the job of the editor, that is the job of the writer. Their job is to find mistakes - grammatical, orthographic, plot holes, that kind of stuff.
I have been slowly working on a novel for the past two years and ChatGPT turned out to be a decent editor. Not all it criticised was correct because it did not always "get" the context, but a lot of things have been quite insightful.
If Trump had promised to destroy hollywood, I would have voted for him 10x harder.
(And i expect I would be disappointed because he wouldn't actually follow through with it)
Anyway, hopefully, AI gets the job done and finally kills that wretched industry. I look forward to further democratization of movie making.
(fwiw, my knee jerk reaction is to oppose the merger.)
The current generation of these smartglasses devices will fail and disappear.
Let me show my work:
1. women cannot use these smart glasses to take selfies.
2. therefore, women will not wear them.
3. therefore, the only people who wear them will be men
4. anything that men do but which women do not do is probably criminal, but certainly creepy, a red flag, or a cause of the ick
5. therefore, men will be shamed (or arrested) into not wearing them either
QED.
They actually can - if you tell them, and sometimes they do that out of their own "initiative". LLMs are pretty good at pattern matching.
Nothing wrong about using an AI as the editor. It is pretty good at that job.
How to work properly with Autodesk Fusion, for example.
Chemistry professors never die, they just fail to react.
