492 karma · joined May 31, 2022
"'Every step of the way, when there's a new technology, we explore it,' said Bunimovitz. "In the adult business, many times the traditional venues are not available to us, so we have to be innovative to get our content to the consumer."
From 2010, they looked to the future and saw...
"As for the future, Bunimovitz says he doesn't expect his industry to back away from the cutting edge of technology. He's currently intrigued with the potential of artificial intelligence, which he said one day might simulate a live porn star who could "interact" with the user."
https://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/23/porn.technology/index.ht...
https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-f...
As others have pointed out, maybe intelligence derived from language just isn't very good at math? It's not like linear algebra comes naturally to humans, we have to be specially trained. I've been taking Khan Academy classes and believe me, math sure doesn't come naturally to me.
I realize tempers are high on this subject, but I literally just wanted to point it out, in case you hadn't seen it. I wasn't trying to dunk on you or anything.
God is Change. Shape God. The Destiny of Earthseed is to take root among the stars.
"Cody has one third-party dependency, which is Anthropic's Claude API. In the config, this can be replaced with OpenAI API."
"In the last few months, there has been this increasing so-called rift between the AI ethics and AI safety communities. There is a lot of talk about how this is an academic rift that needs to be resolved, how these communities are basically aiming for the same purpose. I think the thing that annoys me most about the discourse around this is that people don’t recognize this as a power struggle.
It is not really about intellectual merit of these ideas. Of course, there are lots of bad intellectual and academic claims that have been made on both sides. But that isn’t what this is really about. It’s about who gets funding, which concerns are prioritized. So looking at it as if it is like a clash of individuals or a clash of personalities just really undersells the whole thing, makes it sound like people are out there bickering, whereas in fact, it’s about something much deeper."
Well said.
Don't pretend you understand what my comment meant, so you can abuse me.
From Alan Turing's paper, "COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE"[0]
"(1) The Theological Objection Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think."
regarding your comment:
If you haven't watched The Beatles: Get Back[1], I highly recommend it, if only to watch the Fab Four brainstorm lyrics.
[0]https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf [1]https://www.thebeatles.com/beatles-get-back-disney-original-...
It's quite common feeling that arises when people interact with these things. That skeptical-of-AI folks have decided to pathologize the behavior doesn't make it pathological.
Meanwhile, the "100 high school students" on a mobile phone are the only medical consultation someone in Sub-Saharan Africa or Southern Asia is going to have access to at all.
"Why Not Both" would surely apply here. Maybe we can't give everyone access to a kind, caring, patient human doctor; but we sure can make coming in second place a lot less painful.
[0]https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2017-world-bank-and-who-...
(https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-...)
Wonder.
City of Hope thinks they've found a chemotherapy that's "able to kill all solid tumors","in more than 70 cancer cell lines".[0]
According to the National Cancer Institute[1], there are "more than 100 kinds of cancer". They're listed here: [2] Some of those cancers are soft tissue, so they aren't affected by this treatment.
I didn't know what a cancer "line" was, so I looked it up. "Cancer cell lines are valuable in vitro model systems that are widely used in cancer research and drug discovery."[3] So, they're not cancers in people, but cell cultures they can test drugs on.
This probably doesn't give you much more information than you already have, based on what you heard elsewhere, but I learned enough to figure maybe it would help someone else, too.
Whether this'll work in people, I guess we'll find out when they start the Phase 1 clinical trial. If you, or someone you know think you might benefit from this, there is a link to sign up for Phase 1 trials.[0]
It appears to have worked in pre-clinical trials, so they have tested this to make sure it doesn't kill people outright, the same way it does cancer cells.[4]
[0]https://www.cityofhope.org/city-hope-scientists-develop-targ...
[1]https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/what-is-ca...
[2]https://www.cancer.gov/types
"Since launching Claude, our AI assistant trained with Constitutional AI, we've heard more questions about Constitutional AI and how it contributes to making Claude safer and more helpful. In this post, we explain what constitutional AI is, what the values in Claude’s constitution are, and how we chose them."
It can take on a positive or negative meaning, depending on the context.
"ChatGPT fabricated an answer that was technically correct, but misleading," or "ChatGPT was able to fabricate an innovative solution that had eluded us."
Edit: And of course, everyone's favorite, "ChatGPT found guilty of fabricating case citations."
https://www.techspot.com/news/98860-chatgpt-found-guilty-fab...