lol classic. Cant deal with facts so you have to make stuff up about me

It is absurd to say there will be a model with 100% accuracy.

The secret sauce is exactly that it will always give an answer no matter what right now exactly like a human and not give a probabilistic response.

It would have to give answers like there is:

60% probability of A

30% probability of B

10% probability of C

That is most likely what it is already doing but then just saying the answer is A. When the answer is actually B we say it is "hallucinating".

If you add a threshold that can be adjusted then even at 61% it would say it doesn't know the answer at all.

This is not going to be "solved" without ruining the main part of the magic trick. We want to believe it is super human when it says A and we happen to be within that 60% of the time that the answer is A.

There's nothing wrong with sharing dreams or AI conversations. The problem with those things is that people are shitty storytellers and don't know how to keep things short. If you simply tell people you had a weird dream about XYZ, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. If you go into exquisite detail and make it a fucking LOTR epic saga, peoples eyes will glaze over.

If you're actually having a conversation with an AI, by all means post about it, but no actual spoilers from the future. If you're from an advanced parallel dimension like the timeline where the Roman Empire never fell, it's all good.

Accelerationists btfo.

k.

I have heard this take several times now. It is the worst take.

What he is trying to say is nothing has any meaning and that we can as well just focus all our attention to maximize genocide and rape. Very useless opinion.

If this stands in court (which I doubt) then public domain will be hugely extended.

More deflection!

Edit- aww, someone couldn't deflect anymore so they blocked.

k.

>The decision goes pretty deep into whether prompts or subsequent editing are sufficient to qualify the images as creative, concluding that they aren't.

They decided that prompts are not sufficient, but subsequent editing can be. See page 9 of the document for an exemple of minor subsequent change not representing authoring work, and page 10 for this important paragraph :

>Based on Ms. Kashtanova’s description, the Office cannot determine what expression in the image was contributed through her use of Photoshop as opposed to generated by Midjourney.
She suggests that Photoshop was used to modify an intermediate image by Midjourney to “show[] aging of the face,” but it is unclear whether she manually edited the youthful face in a previous intermediate image, created a composite image using a previously generated image of an older woman, or did something else. To the extent that Ms. Kashtanova made substantive edits to an intermediate image generated by Midjourney, those edits could provide human authorship and would not be excluded from the new registration certificate.

So, USCO clearly states that substantive edits to an image generated by AI can create copyrightability.

More deflection!

> So all new taxes just go to the Pentagon then. Is that your new claim. That around 3% of the US budget is secretly all of it?

.........................................

That was me hitting my forehead. I just... wow

Lol , I’m reading it now and I’m on Chapter 3 “Achieving the Computational Capacity of the Human Brain “. It’s talking about using quantum mechanics, DNA and molecules for computers . Kurzweil has to totally lost me at this point

>That right there is why I don't wish to engag

Another contradiction. You earlier alleged i wasn't engaging, now you aren't engaging.

>You didn't know what barriers of entry was or even economies of scale.

Source on either please. I do admit to not knowing much about barriers of entry since i believe that there is no such thing in the first place. Barriers to entry, however, are something I'm quite well acquainted with and you sent an article which does not attack my point in any way. I also do not know where i disagreed with anything of yours with regards to economies of scale, so you're valiantly fighting strawmen again.

>Goes to the Pentagon" was not "100% of corp taxe money goes to the Pentagon."

So all new taxes just go to the Pentagon then. Is that your new claim. That around 3% of the US budget is secretly all of it?

And yes, I'm one of those people who can't infer without finished sentences.

You're responding to measured criticism with kneejerk blanket statements.

Stop.

I think people are glossing over the editing part. Fixing the eyes, terrain, limbs, or modifying the colors counts as your property.

It doesn’t even mention that anywhere on his Wikipedia. Btw I’m judging his on his ideas he ran for during his presidential nomination run. Ever since then he’s been irrelevant. You are probably some ignorant loser with no career aspiration and looking for more government handouts. You must be so utterly oblivious to even notice we are facing a systemic budget issues which are mostly due to uncontrolled government spending. Go read a book.

>I pointed out contradictions and lies.

You said "those are lies" That's not ""pointing them out." Lmao

>And how corporate taxes only go to the Pentagon.

That right there is why I don't wish to engage. I'm rereading our earlier convo and it's clear to me you don't even have a basic understand of econ. Have you even taken a class on it? You didn't know what barriers of entry was or even economies of scale. This is 101-level man. "Goes to the Pentagon" was not "100% of corp taxe money goes to the Pentagon."

I get it. You're one of those people that can't infer without

I think that superior technology advanced aliens would have their own asi so if one day our asi get detected by a alien I don’t that they would want our asi they probably just want to know how advanced our asi is it like when we go to zoo if we see a monkey using a rock as a tool to use in their daily lives we wouldn’t take a rock from a monkey and risk getting hurt by a angry monkey but we probably just want to know what else they use and how they use it

I'm responding to beambot's comment that this idea "is senseless". But politicians aren't prioritizing 'sense', they prioritize power and money. Of course they need to get Money In, or they can't run the government. But not all methods of "money in" are sensible. So, they toss stuff out and do some opinion polls and eventually make some choices. But the noise of the people does matter.

>I'm a wild card your average 12 year old.

I 100% agree, but I made a poll about 2 weeks ago asking people's opinion if they should be banned or only allowed on certain days. The results were like 70% in favor of them. I don't understand it

And what the fuck do you want from them, if this is how you describe... giving money to people?

>Oh I defended them.

You clearly did not. I pointed out contradictions and lies. Apparently calling them out is now insulting. Your rhetorical strategy is to provide bs claims, support them through lies and BSing through fake sources and supposed personal achievement, and when questioned specifically you immediately retreat and try to play some kind of victim.

Otherwise do tell me how my ignorance of the American tax code somehow prevented me from knowning something that's not even in the tax code. And how corporate taxes only go to the Pentagon.