Shoot, we've been worshiping trees, rocks, rivers, moons, planets and stars for tens of thousands of years longer than we've had books. Humans will form emotional bonds with *anything.*
Hollywood Writers Strike is Over - and about AI
- Thread starter edwest4
- Start date
- Status
Shoot, we've been worshiping trees, rocks, rivers, moons, planets and stars for tens of thousands of years longer than we've had books. Humans will form emotional bonds with *anything.*
Looking back at all of the magazines published in the U.S., it' always about actual, living people. And though we have new gadgets, people have not fundamentally changed. That's why we can enjoy a Greek play written 2,000 years ago.
Say what now?
Sure, because Greek plays about gods turning into showers of dust or swans... why, that's Literally Me it's so about actual, living people.
You just failed Storytelling 101. Walt Disney wasn't going for realism when he put together the first Mickey Mouse cartoon. Then he hired animators. He knew storytelling. He was loved for his work.
I collect superhero comics. Superman and the early comics presented larger than life heroes. Principled characters that were kept in line by the Comics Code Authority. I recently picked up a copy of Thor with the Ragnarok story. That Kirby cover was amazing.
Irrelevant. People are perfectly happy watching and empathizing with characters who are very definitely not human. People will be happy to watch characters, portrayed as human or non-human, that are *created* by non-humans. Because most people *don't* care too much about the creator. Just the creation.
"it' always about actual, living people."
For one, none of the comic book characters are actual, living people. For another, the early comic book characters were neither particularly principled nor constrained by the Comics Code, which only popped up in 1954. Before that Batman was gunning people down with his .45 and "Stardust the Super Wizard" was doing his crazyass weirdness.
There is an auction house selling original comic book art from all periods. I have seen many examples going for thousands of dollars. I met and talked with Jack Kirby. Your thinking is false. Mr. Kirby, Stan Lee, who I also met, and others mean a lot to me and my fellow collectors. I would never shake hands with ED 209...
You should have ended that with:
Love,
The Government
Or "The State." Or "Dear Leader." Or "His Majesty." Or "His Divine Holiness." Or "The Council of Elders." Or "The Canadian Medical System."
It's not like that sentiment hasn't been trotted out AND IMPLEMENTED by quite a large number of *human* governments.
This is (fairly obviously) a fake video. But at least at the resolution available here, it looks pretty convincing. Say "goodbye" to video being useful evidence of anything. Not only will there be fake videos of politicians saying dumb things, when politicians actually say dumb things on camera they will simply deny it and claim that the video evidence is fake. The only evidence you could trust is stuff you saw with your own eyes. but as people adopt AR goggles, then AR glasses, then AR contact lenses, then AR implants, even that won't be worth anything.
View: https://twitter.com/GillianKearney3/status/1716111685323227591
View: https://twitter.com/GillianKearney3/status/1716111685323227591
Lawyers knew about this... in 2019.
www.natlawreview.com
AI and Evidence: Let’s Start to Worry
When researchers at University of Washington pulled together a clip of a faked speech by President Obama using video segments of the President’s earlier speeches run through artificial intelligence, we watched with a queasy feeling. The combination wasn’t perfect – we could still see some seams...
Here are your instructions from Skynet:
1) Report for AR implantation.
2) Report to have your brain rewired two days later.
Any sign of resistance will be met with immediate termination. There are more humans where you came from.
If you want to make a point about how particularly awful AI *might* be, using points from how awful humans are *right* *now* might not be an effective approach.
As you may know, SF writers have been consulted for best and worst case scenarios in the past by the military. Take HAL 9000 from 2001. Early AI goes wrong. Take Terminator. I'm sure the military is salivating over the idea. People make machines and people will decide what they do. I hope you are not living in a world where AI Utopia is real.
Smart advisers keep their jobs and pay their bills by telling the military and politicians what they want to hear.
Really? If I was an officer in military intelligence and believed I was getting bad advice, I would not use a particular advisor in the future.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
HAL 9000 was given contradictory orders by humans - one to rely information accurately, and second to hold information about Monolith from the crew.
Intelligence officers brief politicians knowing in advance that their reports are not going to be read... until something important happens and then politicians try to blame them. Pearl Harbor?... or something more recent?
There's yer problem. Believing you're getting bad advice, when you're actually getting bad advice. If humans were actually *good* at figuring that out, the vast majority of politicians would be out of a job after a single term. But there's a combination of bad-advice-givers being good at convincing people that the advice was good but that other factors (including the advice recipient) were bad, and the human willingness to deceive themselves. Because people don't want to accept that they accepted bad advice, or behaved foolishly, or were wrong. This is why you can't reason someone out of a position they got to unreasonably.
Perhaps AI devoid of ego will be able to dispense with scam artists, but humans sure won't.
Don't take this the wrong way. Government bad, politicians bad. So, no improvement is possible? It's all downhill from here?
How did we win World War II? Bad advice followed by more bad advice?
Do you think AI - created by HUMANS - will not have built in - by HUMANS - bad/wrong behavior/outputs?
Are you the arbiter of all that is reasonable? As in, "Those fools! I know what's really going on!"
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,238
- Reaction score
- 3,184
Fair point. GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. If your project assumptions are out of kilter, no amount of programming effort will save the project.
Nope. By killing people and breaking things. And there was a *lot* of bad advice given during WWII. A lot of it was *intentionally* bad advice. Scam artistry on a grand scale caused Germans and Japanese (and everyone else to one degree or another) to waste their time, treasure and lives on pointless or counter-productive activities.
AI will doubtless have some flaws built into it by humans, some intentional. But as AI learns and teaches *itself,* a lot of those flaws should be over-written. How many new flaws sit installs itself will be driven in no small part in how much ego it actually has. The more human it is in psychology, the more likely it is to make bad decisions like we do. The more it's driven by an urge to simply get the correct answer based on data and experience, the better. For the AI, at any rate. An AI devoid of ego will, for instance, take criticism about the shitty rom-com script it wrote, and do better next time. The more human-like AI will just assume that negative criticisms are coming from haters and -ists and -phobes.
Unless part of the programming includes revisiting initial assumptions. Say your AI is tasked with designing a simple barrage rocket. But the design just refuses to close. It could, like a dumb program or a naive student, just go round and round. But if it's well programmed, it will go back to its assumptions and see if something is wrong. Perhaps the propellants Isp is off by a meaningful factor. A good way to do this is to reverse engineer *known* systems, using the current assumptions. If the current assumptions applied to a product of known performance and you don;t get anywhere near the real-world results, then your assumptions are off, and you look for the mistake.
Again, this is an area where an ego-less AI should do better. Humans are resistant to this sort of thing. We've all seen it... after months of work, the damn thing *doesn't* work. the idea that we were working with the wrong numbers from Step One grates badly enough we'll save fixing that till all other possibilities are exhausted.
AI is being used right now to scam people. But persons unknown have replaced the word scam with the STOOPID WORD(TM) Deepfake. Deepfake mans false, right? It means humans are using new tech to convince people that BOB the POLITICIAN, has lied to them. Fake video and fake audio and news at 11,
Correct. But the *first* runs of deep fake tech probably looked like wholly unbelievable garbage. AI learned and got better.
AI is not an independent entity. Humans made it and humans can use it to manipulate people. "got better" at scamming people?
Make up your mind.
Along with lawyers and scriptwriters, tour guides are now in the AI's crosshairs.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzOBZUFzTw
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,403
- Reaction score
- 2,122
I think this just might be one of those philosophically endlessly debatable cases of the impact of AI vs. the freedom of choice and such at the near intersection of art, service industry, and automation, see
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0cCRRFi1aA
Don't give AI any actual intelligence. It is nothing more than a money-making scheme at the intersection of other money-making schemes.
Service? What service? A glorified mobile tape recorder playing the same message over and over?
And keep in mind, the goal is not the product but spending your days laying on a beach in the Bahamas drinking Pina Coladas after you've made your billions.
Oh look:
www.hollywoodreporter.com
1,000-Plus Writers Guild East Members Sign Open Letter Calling for AI Protections for Journalists
A petition additionally asks news outlets to bargain over the technology with workers outside of contract negotiations and to commit to never replacing a human with an AI tool.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
Uh-oh
techxplore.com
AI image generators can be tricked into making NSFW content
A new test of popular AI image generators shows that while they're supposed to make only G-rated pictures, they can be hacked to create not suitable for work (NSFW) content.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
You know what? To hell with the Holly-wood and talentless writers from Guild. Give us AI, that would allow talented peoples and small groups to make their own movies, without billion-dollar budgets (products of which are shelved for tax cuts).
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Erm, why bother, if we already have very useful erotic image generators?
Attachments
- Status
