Th4tGuyII

So the profit cap has been removed and the non-profit has been kicked out of the control seat. Sounds like they're taking off all the safeties in the name of money.

Goes to show the money always wins, and if AGI comes true, humanity will pay forfeit.

Image manipulation has always been a thing, and there are ways to counter it...

But we already know that a shocking amount of people will simply take what they see at face value, even if it does look suspicious. The volume of AI generated misinformation online is already too damn high, without it getting more new strings in it's bow.

Governments don't seem to be anywhere near on top of keeping up with these AI developments either, so by the law starts accounting for all of this, the damage will be far done already.

So the idea behind the ruling is that a lack of non-competes would cause irreparable harm to the companies themselves...

As opposed to the current system that causes harm to the workers, causing them to be unable work in their field of expertise for an arbitrary amount of time, in which they're expected to just find work in a different industry they're not trained in to feed their families.

Yeah. If you're on a public forum accessible to anyone, which the whole fediverse is, then you should never assume privacy.

Honestly transparency in this regard would be better - they're already visible to much of the community, so they might as well be visible to everyone.

Votes should absolutely be public. They were on KBin, and it made people more civil for it because you could be shamed if you were dislike trolling or liking all of your own posts/comments to make them look better (which is something you actively have to do on here, unlike Reddit).

Given this place is pseudo-anonymous anyways, and people comment far more personal and identifiable info here anyways (which tbf you should be careful about), I think public votes would do much more good than harm.

Because that's comparing oranges to apples.

In terms of pure image quality, real objects would win every time because they only have to be filtered by our eyes - digital images are filtered through the GPU and screen before ever reaching our eyes.

As such, the real contest is the ability of displays to make digital images look comparable to those real objects - because that's harder to do vs. ust looking at the real life object, it's more impressive to us.

It's a race to the bed, as everybody knows monsters can't invade your bed, that's why so many of them live under it

No, but it's on a similar scale as far as Boeing is concerned.

Exactly. This is like if you charged the average person $1 for causing a major motorway accident.

It's a joke of a fine in the face of Boeing's profits - basically telling them they can get away with severe and wreckless disregard for human life in return for just over a week's profits.

I mean it's a beautiful name, who really cares if it's named after a genus of Cicadas? There are worse sounding "normal" names out there. Plus it's named after OP's passion, I think that shows a lot of love

So providing a fine-tuned model shouldn't either.

I didn't mean in terms of providing. I meant that if someone provided a base model, someone took that and but on of it, then used it for a harmful purpose - of course the person modified it should be liable, not the base provider.

It's like if someone took a version of Linux, modified it, then used that modified version for a similar person - you wouldn't go after the person who made the unmodified version.