And illustrates exactly the point I'm making. If people are going to hate it purely because it's AI, regardless of whether it's labelled or not, then there's every incentive there to simply not label it. It's counterproductive.
FaceDeer
joined 2 years ago
Sure, but that disclosure is simply painting a target on themselves. If they're going to be pilloried whether they do it or not then why draw attention? Keeping it unlabelled at least allows for the chance that nobody will notice.
Ham radios could totally be botted, there are plenty of voice models out there that would sound convincing. I assume there's just not much call for it yet because there aren't many people to reach on ham radio.
Once people start congregating to a new medium, that medium will become worth targeting. I don't think that can be stopped without some heavy duty gatekeeping. You might want to read up on proof of personhood protocols for some ideas.
The ad was openly marketed as being created with AI. So, for all those folks who say they "just want AI content to be labelled as such", this is a major reason why there are so many people who refuse to do that. They know it doesn't help.
Yeah, I never noticed any particular negative reaction when someone walked into the Holodeck on Star Trek and said "Computer, create a mystery in the style of Sherlock Holmes" or whatever. Ask most people and they'd probably count that as one of the fictional technologies they were most looking forward to.
After the studio was already shut down. If it turned out they hadn't used generative AI would the results have been any different?
Also, oh no, marketing material. Definitely worth destroying a game studio over.
Due to the accusation of using generative AI. This was a result of the witch hunt itself.
When enough people develop this view of what their government is for, that's when that government crumbles into dysfunction and oppression.
The Reddit equivalent is r/orphancrushingmachine, named after a parody news story telling the uplifting fact that an orphan-crushing machine had been taken out of service for repairs and so wouldn't be crushing orphans for a while. The question of why there had to be an orphan-crushing machine in the first place went unaddressed.
I seem to recall Putin giving his military commanders a hard deadline of mid November to take Pokrovsk.
On the one hand, another round of high-ranking people falling out of windows would be welcome. On the other hand, maybe they should stay in charge.
America didn't have the position it did merely because it had a big economy. China's economy is also huge but its relationship with the rest of the world is completely different from how America's was, for example.
Also, there's a big "if" on that "if it bounces back." What exactly did America do that was so unique?
First it would need to be established that generative AI inherently involves "asset theft", which so far has not been the case in the various lawsuits that have reached trial.