You have an overly broad definition of "doomsday machine."
FaceDeer
joined 2 years ago
I'd say "found the bot", but even bots are familiar with why boobs appeal to human sensibilities.
What clickbait. Apparently any vaguely capable humanoid robot is a "straight-up Terminator"?
The way I've reconciled the Paradox of Tolerance for myself is to view tolerance as part of a social contract. The social contract demands that tolerance be extended to everyone who in turn accepts that social contract themselves. "Being tolerant" doesn't necessarily require that tolerance to be given out indiscriminately. Like how I wouldn't consider a vegan any less a vegan if they ended up having to kill something in self-defense, even if they had to kill it by biting chunks out of it.
In theory, they can pass this with a veto-proof majority.
In practice, you may have spotted a flaw in the US Constitution here. I'll add it to the pile.
Chatting with fictional characters via AI is nothing new.
No, as I said courts have been ruling the opposite. The act of training an AI is fair use. There have been cases where other acts of copyright violation may have occurred before getting to that step (for example, the download of pirated ebooks by Meta has been alleged and is going to trial) but the training itself is not a copyright violation.
You can argue about ethics separately but if you're going to invoke copyright then that's a question of law, not ethics.
Does that matter? There have been several major court cases at this point that have established that training an AI is fair use.
That's not reflected in the music billboards or the traffic going to various AI providers.
Or, it's a way to generate songs about whatever topic or in whatever style that you personally are interested in. That's what I use it for.
Wheeled robots have been the norm for decades, we didn't skip that.