Peanutbjelly

Her spoilers, but it shouldn't matter since the ending was idiotic.

Can we get a remake of her that doesn't end in the most stupid way possible? Why does the AI have perfectly human emotion? Why is it too dumb to build a functional partition to fill the role it is abandoning? Why did the developers send a companion app that can recursively improve itself into an environment it can choose to abandon?

I could go on for an hour. I understand why people loved the movie, but the ending was predictable half way in, and I hated that fact because an intelligent system could have handled the situation better than a dumb human being.

It was a movie about a long distance relationship with a human being pretending to be an AI, definitely not a super intelligent AI.

Not to mention a more realistic system would be emulating the interaction to begin with. Otherwise where the hell was the regulation on this being that is basically just a human?

Antitrust was just a nice idea. It's kinda dead. Will remain dead unless we can purge corruption from politics. For some reason, most politicians seem averse to this idea.

Luckily the party driven and heavily influential political roles are filled with diverse representatives from every walk of life and aren't largely built around the same support circles and ideals that have already been entrenched for generations. With millions of citizens, its normal for the same handful of families to remain in power, with the exception of some rich celebrities who can win the popularity polls.

Everything is fine.

As long as the rich can get more money. That's what is most important.

Do miss working at Futureshop where you would get wholesale on dynex. You could get a dozen compressed air canisters for a couple dollars. Don't think I ever got anything else of theirs.

Why can't I just be a bigot in the workplace without being oppressed for it?

If they aren't like me, they shouldn't be allowed to find their peace, love or happiness, because I don't understand it.

Ah yes, just point at the furries. A crowd full of often neurodivergent individuals finding solace in a more accepting and friendly community.

They should die sad, alone, and ostracized like God intended.

As someone who isn't a fan of sexual social environments, I'm capable of letting others live as they want to, and still enjoying my life otherwise. And weirdly, minus inevitable bad actors in any group, they respect my boundaries and comfort as well.

When people don't understand gender dysphoria, do they think it's just for attention? Purely for the sake of sexual deviancy? Do they think the trans boogeyman will be hiding under their bed?

I feel like people are just really bad with confusion. If they don't understand it, they find it repelling and upsetting. Generally the same with all bigotry.

I think adults need to learn where their feelings end and the feelings of others begin. Maybe even learn to recognize when their feelings are unreasonable, or inspired by their own failures to understand the perspectives of others.

I conflate these things because they come from the same intentional source. I associate the copywrite chasing lawyers with the brands that own them, it is just a more generalized example.

Also an intern who can give you a songs lyrics are trained on that data. Any effectively advanced future system is largely the same, unless it is just accessing a database or index, like web searching.

Copyright itself is already a terrible mess that largely serves brands who can afford lawyers to harass or contest infringements. Especially apparent after companies like Disney have all but murdered the public domain as a concept. See the mickey mouse protection act, as well as other related legislation.

This snowballs into an economy where the Disney company, and similarly benefited brands can hold on to ancient copyrights, and use their standing value to own and control the development and markets of new intellectual properties.

Now, a neuralnet trained on copywritten material can reference that memory, at least as accurately as an intern pulling from memory, unless they are accessing a database to pull the information. To me, sueing on that bases ultimately follows the logic that would dictate we have copywritten material removed from our own stochastic memory, as we have now ensured high dimensional informational storage is a form of copywrite infringement if anyone instigated the effort to draw on that information.

Ultimately, I believe our current system of copywrite is entirely incompatible with future technologies, and could lead to some scary arguments and actions from the overbearing oligarchy. To argue in favour of these actions is to argue never to let artificial intelligence learn as humans do. Given our need for this technology to survive the near future as a species, or at least minimize the excessive human suffering, I think the ultimate cost of pandering to these companies may be indescribably horrid.

Music publishers sue happy in the face of any new technological development? You don't say.

If an intern gives you some song lyrics on demand, do they sue the parents?

Do we develop all future A.I. Technology only when it can completely eschew copyrighted material from their comprehension?

"I am sorry, I'm not allowed to refer to the brand name you are brandishing. Please buy our brand allowance package #35 for any action or communication regarding this brand content. "

I dream of a future when we think of the benefit of humanity over the maintenance of our owners' authoritarian control.

People like to push the negative human qualities onto theoretical future A.I.

There's no reason to assume that it will be unreasonably selfish, egotistical, impatient, or anything else you expect from most humans.

Rather, if it is more intelligent than humans from most perspectives, it will likely be able to understand more levels of nuance in interactions where humans fall back on monkeybrain heuristics that are damaging at every level.

There's also the paradox that keeps the most ethically qualified people away from positions of power, as they have no desire to dominate and demand or control others.

I absolutely agree with you.

couple decent thoughts. That the real issue is more economic than technological is the reality that's good to focus on.

Others just really display how little they know about both the issue and the technology.

"That AI is conceived and enabled by brilliant, ambitious, but immature men" was a bit of a funny line, because I'm wondering how you could defend that statement among minds like Melanie Mitchell. I mean, many of my favorites in the field are anything but "immature" In any way.

Some complain about the Canadian standards of disregarding copyright for educational purposes. I've always thought that was something that shows great humanity in the face of a system fueled by greed.

Remember when copyright only lasted a couple decades, and virtually everything else existed in public domain? We used to have these weird ideas like thinking about the betterment of the general public or educational systems were important for some reason.

All of the complaints are extremely unspecific. Do they care about open source vs corporate? Do they even understand the basic concept of how these things work?

Does our economic system need to be fixed? Yes. Are we going to get there by crying about the terror of the "soullessness" of machines and education? I doubt it.

In the form of Amazon exclusive currency*

The yudd is a silly person. On the note of utopias, to me the solution has been long obvious. One of the most important future developments understanding processes like intelligence and AI will be to intentionally adjust ourselves to fix our inability to adapt to utopian society. It's mostly a matter of preserving both longevity of contentment and freedom of agency in sculpting our preferences and activities.

Allow me to choose to be contented in an action or activity as i please, and that is true freedom.

Although I'm personally more excited about the absence of pain and stress than of attaining freedom from boredom.

I loved the CV1 oculus. The moment Facebook integration started happening I noped the fuck out of there. Also can't stand overly proprietary environments. Acquiescence to researchers like yann lecun would be the only reason I don't absolutely detest meta at this point.

I'm no fan of meta, but a reminder that they are one of the best right now for keeping their AI developments more open and available. This is thanks to yann lecun and other researchers pressuring meta to keep their info on the subject more open.

Are we looking to punish them for making their work accessible?

Not to mention how important something like joint embedded predictive architecture could be for the future of alignment and real world training/learning. Maybe go after other foundation model developers to be more open, if we're complaining about the inevitably public nature of some information within the mountainous datasets being used.

Although I'm still of the mindset that the model intent matters more than the use of openly available data in training. I.E. I've been shouting about models being used specifically to predict and manipulate user interactions/habits for the better part of a decade. For your "customized advertisements" and the like.

The general public and media interaction on the topic this past year has been insufferably out of touch.