so that corporations can make a few easier dollars before this whole planet burns in flames?
Sure. But they do that by providing services. Services like Gmail and (probably for a large part) cloud hosting for other companies, companies whose services you're probably using as well.
And honestly, it usually is more economical (Both financially as well as in eco footprint) for those companies to use cloud services that scale based on demand, rather than having a fixed set of servers running for the potential max capacity.
Don't get me wrong, increased carbon emissions is bad, but the picture is a bit more nuanced than "Google flip switch, kill animals, get money".
The AI hype (talk to your toaster!) will blow over, useful AI will remain and improve, this is just a hurdle along the way.
But why wouldn't those same limits not apply to biological controllers? A neuron is basically a transistor.
Because people don't read articles, and this way OP can still get the rage-engagement
In a way, that's what I'm contributing to now as well. So that's why I'm not even going to
I'd wager the main reason we can't prove or disprove that, is because we have no strict definition of intelligence or sentience to begin with.
For that matter, computers have many more transistors and are already capable of mimicking human emotions - how ethical is that, and why does it differ from bio-based controllers?
Oh my. Sometimes Betteridge's law of headlines is wrong.
I was about to mention this example. It's everything you love about mythbusters (doing crazy science experiments), without everything you hate about mythbusters and what made me stop watching. No more constant hopping over between the different myths per episode, or tons of recaps.
Just myths, one at a time, no bullshit.
At least this is opt-in, and Firefox still allows for manifest v3 extensions, and, on the whole, isn't using a engine funded by a billion dollar company that's doing everything in it's power to spy on you.
Is he banning them for disagreeing, or for people calling him a pedo over an autistic semantics discussion?
Mind you, I agree that when you hold controversial opinions about certain topics people are likely to discuss, you shouldn't be a mod. Then again, if you value your sanity and blood pressure, you shouldn't want to be a mod anyway - it's a thankless job.
Huh? The screenshot says they think generated pictures are not abusive. Not the it's not csam.
That's a very dangerous way of twisting someone's words, especially on a subject this emotionally charged.
Edit: adding to add that contrary to the title here, they are not talking about Editing pictures to be nudes, but generating them. Don't get me wrong, I have no interest in seeing either, and the day they're paying themselves is not doing them any favours. But someone is clearly out for character assassination here.
Nevermind, it was about altering the photos of a 15 year old girl into nudes. And while it technically/physically may not be child abuse, for the victim it might as well be. That's indefensible - I'm out.
As someone who worked on a couple of video encoding / streaming services, this was an amazingly interesting read. Some personal highlights:
- Custom encoding settings offer shows, per episode, and even per scene.
- They created a short film specifically to cater to hard-to-encode scenes.
At the risk of committing whataboutism - the same can be said about Facebook, Google, etc. And I don't say that to marginalise the problem. Quite the contrary - I honestly feel it should be illegal to gather this level of personal detail about people.
That the focus right now is on tiktok is suspect, to say the least, but I guess the upside is that the problem is getting attention now.
Yeah, because that worked so well with tracking popups.
For me it just gives an error post0 failed to load.
Edit: that's probably my lemmy client trying to approach this blog as though it were a lemmy instance 🤦♂️
