Photoshop is a general purpose image editting tool that is mostly harmless. That's not the same for AI. The people who created them and allow other people to use them do so anyway without enough consideration to the risks they know is much much higher than something like Photoshop.
What you say applies to photoshop because the devs know what it can do and the possible damage it can cause from misuse is within reasons. The AI you are talking about are controlled by the companies that create them and use them to provide services. It follows it is their responsibility to make sure their products are not harmful to the extend they are, especially when the consequences are not fully known.
Your reasoning is the equivalent of saying it's the kids fault for getting addicted to predatory mobile games and wasting excessive money on them. Except that it's not entirely their fault and programs aren't just a neutral tool but a tool that is customised to the wills of the owners (the companies that own them). So there is such a thing as an evil tool.
It's all those companies, and the people involved, as well as law makers responsiblity to make the new technology safe with minimal negative impacts to society rather than chase after their own profits while ignoring the moral choices.
The economy will be great again because some dumb country will sure to wage war for resources eventually in a selfish attempt to make things better for themselves short term while making everyone including themselves die even faster. And we all know how much America loves taking advantage of war to sell weapons!
I'd love to see those who disagree with his statement answer the question "when is a good time to not vote for educated leaders?" that applies more than 0.01% of the time.
Even religious people shouldn't disagree with it. If you want someone with religious background in then you want them to be educated in matters to do with that religion. That they themselves don't consider that education is telling.
Let me tell you an anecdote. I'm Asian and grew up in an Asian country. When I was studying abroad there's a time when my American friends were watching a Japanese drama series. I was the one asking them throughout the watch session who's who because I couldn't tell the actors' faces apart.
But considering that humans do get copyright strikes when they do something too similar that should also applies to AI, doesn't matter if it's not exact.
Don't understand why you stereotyped people and basically insulted them and then wondered why people are offended? Yea? No one wants to see your fucking junk either. No, just because you're not gay doesn't make you any more or less likely to do what you are accusing them of.
I think it’s still better than Lemmy where many of the top posts are from several days ago, when it’s clear from Kbin there are enough content it doesn’t have to be like that.
Who’s gonna bet China is going to use this to bring back headlines of their propaganda from years ago about how covid-19 actually originated in the US?
“There are differences in the way men and women feel and think,” one flyer reads. “One of the reasons for this is the structural difference in the brains of men and women. It is known that men act based on theories, while women act based on emotions.”
Ew, it's the whole thing and not just a one sentence slip. Not surprising, but still disappointing. Being an angry asshole because of testosterone is still 100% acting on emotion and not logic.
I don't think this question is that different from asking whether a cat ever wonder why a dog might want to play with it. A cat probably assume something, which might not even be the same as another cat. It probably also depends on their personality and experience. Kind of like how humans often assume certain things without thinking about it too deeply, like the motivation of another person, even if that assumption is wrong.
Plagiarism in a different form.