Having superpowers powered by emotion is dangerous, and the whole point of Jedi training is to understand and recognize your emotions, so that you don’t allow intense emotions to control your actions.
Anakin did not learn those lessons. Ignoring emotion is the antithesis of Jedi teaching, the entire point is to learn how to deal with them in a healthy way.
I don’t think you’re on the right track here. There are definitely existing laws in most states regarding ‘revenge porn’, creating sexual media of minors, Photoshop porn, all kinds of things that are very similar to ai generated deep fakes. In some cases ai deepfakes fall under existing laws, but often they don’t. Or, because of how the law is written, they exist in a legal grey area that will be argued in the courts for years.
Nowhere is anyone suggesting that making deepfakes should be prosecuted as rape, that’s just complete nonsense. The question is, where do new laws need to be written, or laws need to be updated to make sure ai porn is treated the same as other forms of illegal use of someone’s likeness to make porn.
"It also seems to me that if we only tell men to never “pursue”, but do nothing about the “hard to get”-behaviour, then men who follow the new instructions or script will be left with no chance to meet someone. "
I was with you 100% up to here. Women are well aware they don’t have to ‘play hard to get’ anymore. This has been a huge cultural shift over the last 70 years, acting like only mens behavior is changing is naive at best.
Thanks for the info! I guess that’s ultimately what I’m looking for more about: how much do we know about cellular traffic? Obviously with encryption we can’t just directly read cell signals to find out what’s being sent, so do people just record the volume of data being sent in individual packets and make educated guesses?
It seems plausible to run a simple(non-AI) algorithm to isolate probable conversations and send stripped and compressed audio chunks along with normal data. I assume that’s still probably too hard to hide, but if anyone out there knows of someone that’s looked for this stuff, I’d love to check it out.
It’s almost like they were asking about sources for people looking or something.
If you’re not going to contribute, why are you wasting people’s time?
It’s a reasonable explanation, and what I typically assume to be true. Still, I’m curious about the actual mechanics, and if it potentially could be being done by Google without the larger tech industry being aware of it.
That makes sense, but isn’t it assuming they’re processing data on the device? I would expect them to send raw audio back to be processed by Google ad services. Obviously it wouldn’t work without signal either, but that’s hardly a limitation.
As someone else pointed out, how does the google song recognition work? That’s active without triggering the light indicating audio recording, and is at least processing enough audio data to identify songs.
As someone relatively ignorant about the mechanics of something like this, would it not make more sense that the app would be getting this data from the Android OS, with Google’s knowledge and cooperation?
The place I see the most unsettling ads (that seem to be driven by overheard conversation) tends to be the google feed itself, so it seems reasonable to me that they could be using and selling that information to others as well, and merely disguising how the data were acquired.
Just a heads up, catbox.moe is starting to get blocked by some major ISPs. Verizon is one I’ve run into, catbox links won’t load if I’m using the mobile network.
deleted by creator
Thanks for clarifying, now please refer to the poster’s original statement:
AI doesn’t grok anything. It doesn’t have any capability of understanding at all. It’s a Markov chain on steroids.
I think if someone looks good in photos but not on video, they probably just have a skilled photographer.
Obviously, most of Mega’s traffic is piracy, they have no interest in doing that. The point is it’s an actual comparison instead of the nonsense you brought up.
Of course no individual site is going to singlehandedly stop criminal acts. Glad you agree it would be exactly as effective as I suggested.
I mean, I know Google has been shitty lately, but Wikipedia isn’t hard to find: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)
I’d wager Nintendo has put some fear into a few folks considering developing emulators, but that’s the only comparison to be made here. The lack of any real consequences for individuals downloading roms is why so many are happy to publicly proclaim their piracy.
Now, I bet if megaupload added an AI that checked users uploads for copyrighted titles and gave everyone trying to upload them a warning about possible jail time, we’d see a hell of a lot less roms and movies on mega.
But having that tracking shown to you has a very powerful psychological effect.
It’s pretty well established that increasing penalties for crimes does next to nothing to prevent those crimes. But what does reduce crime rates is showing how people were caught for crimes, making people believe that they are less likely to ‘get away with it’.
Being confronted with your own searches is an immediate reminder that the searcher is doing something illegal, and that they are not doing so unnoticed. That’s wildly different than abstractly knowing that you’re probably being tracked somewhere by somebody among billions of other people.
Extremist incel males are “stupid” cos they didn’t use grammer cos “feminist thing” or cos they are “stupid” they didn’t use grammer and “they are so masculine”?
They’re interrelated, and important to talk about together in this context. Sometimes it’s more useful to look at what the asker is trying to accomplish than simply answering exactly what was asked.
No is arguing otherwise.
One paper does not make a “fact”. Years of established research and widespread consensus barely justifies labeling a subject as a “fact”.
Have you already forgotten the room temperature superconductor claims from last year?
Let me be absolutely clear. I am in no way trying to discredit this paper. I see no reason to question their findings, it’s good science and absolutely should be followed up on. However, I take strong exception to people jumping on any half decent study and treating it as gospel.
Holy fuck what a stupid response.
Here’s some recommended reading, hope it helps: https://kids.kiddle.co/Hypothesis
What ‘good’ was he actually trying to do? Padme was in no actual danger, he just had dreams about her dying. A desire to force someone to live beyond their natural life through any possible means and despite all negative consequences is not ‘good’. There is no universe where murdering dozens of children is ok because he might be able to save his wife from something bad that might happen to her at some future point.