I think that the elephant, monkey and Holy Spirit are discriminated here. I'll start a petition for equal rights for Holy Spirits and men alike.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wasn't that because there was a dispute with a journalist and no one could define the difference ? Maybe not.There was a lawsuit over a photo that a monkey took with a camera, I'm willing to bet that's what the copyright office office was referring to.
"...lack of thought processes." A very prominent human charasteric.The only areas where performance is better are those such as search engines because data can be pattern matched faster than a human can do it.
The data itself is the result of human thinking. That is what I meant. As far as designing new things - that requires ideas and thought processes
which the human brain has but a computer does not.
Using something like ChatGPT to generate an answer and have it come out so wrong is the end result of the lack of thought processes.
Yes, what was it ? The two most abundant elements in the universe - hydrogen and stupidity."...lack of thought processes." A very prominent human charasteric.
Time to watch Colossus: The Forbin Project.
Knowing Bender, he's probably into Ex Machina, since it has female robots.I wonder if that is Bender's favourite movie.
Elon Musk often says one thing than does another. He's largely useless to listen to.FOX had an extended interview with Elon Musk the other night. He seemed to be quite serious in his belief in the need for government oversight/regulation in order to prevent harm (in various forms to society) from AI. His view seemed to be that AI will harm society if we are not very careful.
Or just humanity as a whole...I more and more believe that AI will be the downfall of human creativity.
Plus it wouldn't be hard to justify all sorts of cynical excuses to curb or prevent such content.They can now fake any artist and pretend it's new material. For instance in music, so they will be able to produce music by computer and flood the market with it without anyone knowing if it's real or not. Anyone can sound like anyone. It'll be worse than the dreaded autotune.
For instance in music, so they will be able to produce music by computer and flood the market with it without anyone knowing if it's real or not.
Regardless it was stated that 50% of A.I. researchers assigned a probability of 10% that A.I. could get outside their control and end humanity if I recall: Even if the others assigned a probability of 0% that's still a probability of 5%.
"They" would be the streaming service I think. They would hugely benefit. Copyright is of no consequence.Who is the "they" in the above? Given that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted in the U.S., where is the benefit from "flooding the market" with AI music? Without copyright protection, and the exclusivity it provides, how will anyone earn revenue from AI music? It's one thing if someone makes some AI music for their own use, it's another entirely for a business or person who's looking to make money from their creation.
Even highly tested and controlled technology can go awry - self-driving cars that run over pedestrians and dive into emergency vehicles is completely outside of the programming perimeters.Meh, I'm skeptical of such prognostication. There's nothing existing currently which comes close to actual artificial intelligence.
Personally, I tend to think it's people suffering from Frankenstein complex. Shelley's story casts a long shadow in the collective memory.