All of which should be done by human beings. Period.

Currently, maybe. But technology is fantastic at accuracy, better than humans in many regards. Gemini might have a way to go before it gets there, but it or its successors will get there and it’s moving fast.

Productivity is irrelevant here

I’m not sure it is. Productivity also refers to efficiency of services. If AI can make the services of the National Archives more productive for its staff and/or the public then surely that’s a good thing?

🎵 Tesla Optimus! Humans in disguise! 🎵

Second recommendation for Affinity Photo as a Photoshop replacement. 👍

Oh for sure. How we regulate AI (including how we power it) is really important, definitely.

Typical lack of nuance on the Internet, sadly. Everything has to be Bad or Good. Black or White. AI is either The best thing ever™ or The worst thing ever™. No room for anything in between. Considering negative news generates more clicks, you can see why the media tend to take the latter approach.

I also think much of the hate is just people jumping on the AI = bad band-wagon. Does it have issues? Absolutely. Is it perfect? Far from it. But the constant negativity has gotten tired. There’s a lot of fascinating discussion to be had around AI, especially in the art world, but God forbid you suggest it’s anything but responsible for the total collapse of civilisation as we know it…

Fascinating article!

I thought it was Iron man’s helmet, lol

Thanks, that had me confused to at first.

This is for EU countries only. UK details here: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/countries/united_kingdom for anyone interested.

Deep Impact is to Armageddon as Volcano is to Dante’s Peak.

This is never not appropriate with stories like this.

A couple of years ago I saw an article on Toyota inventing something called solid state battery’s… Never heard anything about that again.

… the article you provided was nothing more than “LG is researching solid state batteries”

Maybe, but we can certainly help by, amongst many other things, not advertising AI Nude Apps on Instagram. Ultimately what we shouldn’t be doing is blaming the victims by implying they are somehow at fault for having the audacity to upload pictures of themselves to the Internet.

It’s about consent. If you have no problem with people jerking off to your pictures, fine, but others do.

If you don’t want people to jerk off to your photos, don’t upload any. It happens with and without these apps.

You get that that opinion is pretty much the same as those who say if she didn’t want to be harrassed she shouldn’t have worn such provocative clothing!?

How about we allow people to upload whatever pictures they want and try to address the weirdos turning them into porn without consent, rather than blaming the victims?

👉😎👉

Excellent news.

I mean, yes in so far that it opens those options up to people who may not have been able to afford it before. Whether that’s a ‘need’ or not depends on your opinion of the company I guess.

Also there are other applications beyond this, of course. Easily made videos could help reduce the costs associated with treating some mental health issues for example.

The you have the ability for novice film makers to make content, a bit like how engines like Unity have made it easier for people to make games. Sure there’ll be shit-tier tat, but there’ll also be content made by creators that may never have had the chance otherwise.

OK, poor example, but you get my point.

I mean, the ability to generate whatever video you want without having to pay the costs normally associated with filming, location, actors etc is going to be very appealing to people like advertisers. This way you can have a few seconds of a beach for your travel company advert, for example, without having to pay for the stock footage or film it yourself. In fact I can see this transforming stock footage in general. Why bother to pay someone to make a generic video of ‘people having a meeting’ when an AI can do it for free in half the time. Doesn’t even need to be that good if you’re only using it briefly in a presentation. Not saying any of this is a good thing, but here we are…

I mean, it might seem that way but evidence suggests otherwise: https://www.undp.org/press-releases/worlds-largest-survey-public-opinion-climate-change-majority-people-call-wide-ranging-action

This is more likely evidence of the lack of awareness people have of data like this, rather than a disinterest in the topic. Just because it’s readily available, doesn’t mean people know about it. Also, don’t confuse a lack of interest in viewing data on air quality as a lack of interest in air quality itself. Those are not the same thing.