Comment Re:A lot of things are in the way of progress here (Score 1) 91
I have to add - the "would it make people blind or lose hair" was a reference to when the light bulb was invented.
Comment Re:A lot of things are in the way of progress here (Score 1) 91
> you should be killed
Off-topic. Obviously anything that's unethical to a point where there already are laws worldwide against it, is not part of this opinion.
Comment A lot of things are in the way of progress here. (Score 1) 91
Any ethical concern other than the environment, is superfluous.
e.g.
would it become too intelligent?
would it take someone's job?
would it make someone feel emotionally hurt?
would it stop people talking face to face?
would it change our traditional way of life?
would it make young people escape supervision?
would it make people blind or lose hair?
That's why other countries are taking over in terms of progress. Just try it out and see what happens, geez.
Comment Instead of buying consumer robots (Score 1) 91
How about buying industrial robots that helps with large scale domestic production?
Don't buy fish, buy fishing rods.
I think some simple long term thinking is missing here.
What's stopping beefing up manufacturing capacity using robots? Hopefully it's not the unions.
Comment Legit defence against distillation attack (Score 1) 47
When you distil someone else's model, don't complain when they add some measures against you.
It's like robbers complaining about someone installing stronger door locks.
Comment Re:First Post! (Score 1) 79
Always nice to meet someone who considers me a kid.
Comment Re:Always Be Closing (Score 1) 36
Image and video generation will contain product placement.
And text responses too.
"But wait, there's more!"
Comment How about nuclear? And why look at percentage? (Score 1) 144
Does it mean that the total power consumption actually increased, or is it nearly the same while nuclear decreased?
Global warming only cares about the absolute amount of fossil fuels. It does not care about the percentage.
Comment Re: pareidolia at its finest. (Score 2) 124
Principle of Oddmatches. If you have a million samples, you can expect to find one-in-a-million incidents.
So I gave this story no credence until The Atlantic denied it.
Comment Re:Why?? (Score 2) 74
It's interesting how these multi-billion-dollar AI companies all have such remarkably terrible UI.
Comment Common Sense? (Score 1) 175
If you rely on the drug alone without lifestyle changes, you lose the benefits when you get off the drug.
Comment Mod this up! (Score 1) 91
Canada is making a choice for the less of 2 evils. It should really diversify WAY beyond both the USA and China.
Comment Predictable (Score 1) 91
In a sense that trade will be predictably weaponized. Better than Trump's unpredictability, but I doubt the end result would be much better.
AI Is Intensifying a 'Collapse' of Trust Online, Experts Say (nbcnews.com) 60
Experts interviewed by NBC News warn that the rapid spread of AI-generated images and videos is accelerating an online trust breakdown, especially during fast-moving news events where context is scarce. From the report: President Donald Trump's Venezuela operation almost immediately spurred the spread of AI-generated images, old videos and altered photos across social media. On Wednesday, after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot a woman in her car, many online circulated a fake, most likely AI-edited image of the scene that appears to be based on real video. Others used AI in attempts to digitally remove the mask of the ICE officer who shot her.
The confusion around AI content comes as many social media platforms, which pay creators for engagement, have given users incentives to recycle old photos and videos to ramp up emotion around viral news moments. The amalgam of misinformation, experts say, is creating a heightened erosion of trust online -- especially when it mixes with authentic evidence. "As we start to worry about AI, it will likely, at least in the short term, undermine our trust default -- that is, that we believe communication until we have some reason to disbelieve," said Jeff Hancock, founding director of the Stanford Social Media Lab. "That's going to be the big challenge, is that for a while people are really going to not trust things they see in digital spaces."
Though AI is the latest technology to spark concern about surging misinformation, similar trust breakdowns have cycled through history, from election misinformation in 2016 to the mass production of propaganda after the printing press was invented in the 1400s. Before AI, there was Photoshop, and before Photoshop, there were analog image manipulation techniques. Fast-moving news events are where manipulated media have the biggest effect, because they fill in for the broad lack of information, Hancock said. "In terms of just looking at an image or a video, it will essentially become impossible to detect if it's fake. I think that we're getting close to that point, if we're not already there," said Hancock. "The old sort of AI literacy ideas of 'let's just look at the number of fingers' and things like that are likely to go away."
Renee Hobbs, a professor of communication studies at the University of Rhode Island, added: "If constant doubt and anxiety about what to trust is the norm, then actually, disengagement is a logical response. It's a coping mechanism. And then when people stop caring about whether something's true or not, then the danger is not just deception, but actually it's worse than that. It's the whole collapse of even being motivated to seek truth."
The confusion around AI content comes as many social media platforms, which pay creators for engagement, have given users incentives to recycle old photos and videos to ramp up emotion around viral news moments. The amalgam of misinformation, experts say, is creating a heightened erosion of trust online -- especially when it mixes with authentic evidence. "As we start to worry about AI, it will likely, at least in the short term, undermine our trust default -- that is, that we believe communication until we have some reason to disbelieve," said Jeff Hancock, founding director of the Stanford Social Media Lab. "That's going to be the big challenge, is that for a while people are really going to not trust things they see in digital spaces."
Though AI is the latest technology to spark concern about surging misinformation, similar trust breakdowns have cycled through history, from election misinformation in 2016 to the mass production of propaganda after the printing press was invented in the 1400s. Before AI, there was Photoshop, and before Photoshop, there were analog image manipulation techniques. Fast-moving news events are where manipulated media have the biggest effect, because they fill in for the broad lack of information, Hancock said. "In terms of just looking at an image or a video, it will essentially become impossible to detect if it's fake. I think that we're getting close to that point, if we're not already there," said Hancock. "The old sort of AI literacy ideas of 'let's just look at the number of fingers' and things like that are likely to go away."
Renee Hobbs, a professor of communication studies at the University of Rhode Island, added: "If constant doubt and anxiety about what to trust is the norm, then actually, disengagement is a logical response. It's a coping mechanism. And then when people stop caring about whether something's true or not, then the danger is not just deception, but actually it's worse than that. It's the whole collapse of even being motivated to seek truth."
Comment Re:I'm not sure this is possible (Score 1) 57
And Europe would get instantly crushed, if it ever came to that.
It won't. But Europe is entirely reliant on the US choosing not to do that.
