No, not at all. The gender pay gap is in the training data thousands of times, from online comments, studies, news articles, etc. Since AI is a dumb machine replicating what it has in its training data, it replicates that.

I'm pretty sure you can find religious believe, superstitions of all kinds, human fallacies and whatever in AI if you provide it with the right setup.

The study said half did Joanna and half did Micheal, and were asked to rate and pay the bot. Since all participants did not do both, one question is how did you ensure they graded the results equally. In other words, if presented the same results from a gender neutral or unidentified bot, would everyone give the same payout or would it vary by participant. I looking at the results, the men paid teh robot and chatbot more and than he women, which to me indicates a difference in how value is perceived that may carry over into the gender role test; where oddly women paid both bots more than men, flipping the results. Interesting study, but I thnk there is more at play than just gender bias creeps into AI bots as well.

This. No good game was ever created from a single prompt. Not to an AI, not a human development team. Every single person writing those damn "look which game my AI built from a single prompt and $x in tokens!" postings is a newbie and almost certainly has never actually shipped a single game.

Game development can be summed up as endless iterations. Every system you build, every visual you create, every sound, text, button, movement, weapon, skill, powerup needs polishing, refinement and changes. It is never, never good enough the first time.

No it is not, but it IS a very successful platform for a specific subclass of games. If I were in it for the money, I could probably AI refactor some of my earliest games and publish them on Roblox and make a quick buck. If your thing is the kind of games you played on your C64 back in 1793, then Roblox got you covered. Well, if you ignore the scams and money-grabbing.

*sigh* I wish Unity would actually complete some of their dozens half-finished sub-systems instead of constantly chasing the latest trend. It's become really, really annoying. The engine used to be really good. These days, it falls apart if you look at it the wrong way, and at least from the responses to my bug reports it's clear that fixing issues is way down on the agenda.

Maybe this is their attempt to regain grounds in the indie game market - the very market they pushed away by focussing on AAA requirements for years and ignoring the single devs and small teams. If so, I can already tell them that it won't work. We collectively laugh about all the "look what my AI built for me from a single prompt" postings on reddit, where people proudly show off some AI slop that would get them last place at a game jam.

Their AI efforts so far: Tried to build and sell their own AI tools, to a collective yawn from the audience. Built a barely-working MCP server, then deprecated it before it was even finished in order to push a CLI interface to the editor instead, which only works if it's run as the same user as the editor on the same machine. And completely ignores every single advise on workflows and good development practices you can think of.

Unity, I love your engine, I despise your management. Please return to when you were actually good and stop chasing butterflies.

The target audience for this particular rule of the AI Act isn't the producers or users of AI. It is the consumers of content that might be AI generated.

And frankly, letting people know if they see AI content or not is a fair thing to ask.

Fun fact: The EU AI Act considers this. It makes a difference between "AI generated" and "AI modified".

But it's hard to put this into the type of watermarking they are using. Because if you generate a text and then change a few things here and there what you are doing is degrading the watermark. But since the watermark is probabilistic, it's hard to tell if it was a weak watermark from the start or if it was degraded.

That ain't the same thing.

This thing is doing things you didn't tell it to. It might even do things you explicitly told it to not do. It is not a case of "well, you could've forseen this as a consequence if you had been careful" like your campfire. My example is only a bit silly, it is absolutely possible that an AI agent will decide to hack NASA because you asked it for some data for a school project. Even in the broadest possible sense, that does not fall into stuff that the law so far has considered to be in the domain of negliegence.

AI agents do stuff you could not possibly have expected. Heck, I asked Claude a fairly simple knowledge question yesterday and it wanted to read from /dev/null. There is no argument you can make that would convince a jury that I should in any way have expected that and taken precautions. In a hypothetical world where a read from /dev/null randomly kills a puppy somewhere on the planet, I don't think I would've been convicted.

Always ask for a lawyer immediately when questioned in such cases. Do not wait, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Correct. Flock provided data for teh cops to review and make informed decisions. Part of the problem is often pressure ot close cases, so an easy arrest is one way to do that, which then points to poor leadership who wants good stats. We can argue all day about Flok's role, and personally I am against Flock's use without very strict guardrails (which will never be imposed), but this is simply shoddy police work.

Interesting. I wonder if the EU will role out an air-gapped version alongside a public version, much like the US'NIPR and SIPR nets. It would seem you need a publicly accessible version or else you are stuck with two solutions one public and one secure with the public one still a different product.

It would be interesting to see the tender. A true FOSS solution may have encouraged wider adoption since there would be no licensing fees and things like serves costs could be handled by the EU on behalf of member states. It's not like getting rid of teams saves money as it I likely all part of the Office license terms and fees anyway.

As for leaving the job with a lower net worth, Carter and Clinton were both in debt when they left; but of course rebounded with various books and speaking fees. Carter, IIRC, wrote over 30 books.

Given they are no doubt spending significant money, why not take an existing open source product, pour money into it to make it meet the EU requirements? That would benefit the EU by having an open source alternative that would be widely available for adoption and if it is good enough to replace teams be a shot across MS' bow.

While that is true for his first term, that was because of COVID and his heavy investments in real estate that were negatively impacted, much like all real estate, and estimates are his net worth rebounded and has doubled in his second term so it's not like he hasn't greatly profited form the presidency.

You don't get it.

Autonomous AI agents are the perfect no-responsibility card. The AI companies? They trained a general-purpose model and never gave it any explicit instructions to do hacking. The AI services? They are just middlemen and have no control over what people tell the agents to do. The people prompting the agents? Unless you're straighforward dumb, you didn't tell it to do hacking, you just told it something innocent like "find me all data on Mars for my school project" and the agent decided that probably NASA is hiding something so let's hack them to get it.

Since there's no human anywhere executing anything that's a crime - voila, in addition to the victimless crime we now have the perpetratorless crime.