Observe, orient, decide, and then act to design, create, mutate, and operate elegant systems for perceiving, understanding, and effectively solving problems.
Listen, learn, and then: educate.
Encourage convergence.
Test to be sure.
There are no unquestionable answers.
There are no unanswerable questions.
Well, they're not buying the 'likeness' in most cases as much as they're buying the actor's 'star power' - i.e. their ability to trade on their own name and performance independently of any one media product. That is, simply having their name attached to something makes that thing more likely to do well financially. This is what they're buying - and why casting "unknowns" in a "big budget" production is rather unusual. It's more risky than simply paying, say, Chris Pratt or Scarlett Johansson to perform. As you might imagine, investors don't like risk except the kind that guarantees them returns.
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
― Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History
Oh, I agree. The concept of being capable of being coerced into signing away your likeness in perpetuity is absolutely vile. In a real sense it's the only thing you own that can't be separated from you. These contracts should be illegal just in the way signing a contract to endenture yourself is illegal.
Perhaps the problem is people needing to be employed to justify their existence or as a proxy measure to their ongoing contribution to society and its degree?
Simply because I didn't state "for all and every" doesn't invalidate my point, nor does it support yours as true - further, "heavily favored" suffers from the same problem. The point is, there's a system which takes as input formatted in a specification (a program) and some transformed output (a set of actions to be taken or another program input for another compiler). So, there you go. If a hot dog on a bun could be considered a sandwich, then a CPU could be considered to be a compiler. shrug disagree all you like.
Words have meanings, and the instruction pipeline consists of electrical signals - and those early CPUs were almost all microcoded or had multiphase clocks or some other implementation abstraction which they did not expose to their architectural state... so yes, they were in a very real sense compilers.
The CPU is a compiler for programs written in the machine instruction set architecture the CPU claims to implement which happens to output real world effects just as a compiler outputs program code. So, no, you can't.
Technical uncovered short position. Nothing wrong with taking a short position on a technical aspect of the project/product and taking the premium right now - so long as you hedge your bets. Otherwise you might have the contract assigned and go bankrupt, or fail to deliver the asset promised and lose everything. There's a reason purposefully taking uncovered short positions is illegal in most developed markets...
There is, the input is the description of the image so produced plus the hidden elements and parameters (randomness, etc) that users often don't see - with these there is a deterministic input to output relationship. The fitness of the model is in how closely the output matches what we expect to see from them given the inputs we give. That's the point of them. Models are compilers. The distinction is really only in the complexity and ambiguity of the language specifications they implement - not in any fundamental aspect of their function. There isn't a single person alive who understands how a non-trivial compiler works in its entirety, just as nobody really knows how LLMs work yet. That's not the point.
The output of a compiler (i.e. A translation program) is created via a prompt (the source code). The output object code is very much copyrighted. People keyword stuff their source code all the time (pragmas) in order to influence the generated output. Why does that object code deserve copyright protection except when the compiler is an AI model (i.e. A translation program)? Compilers use genetic algorithms and weights from profiling in order to generate better output. Where does the output stop being capable of copyright protection because it's no longer "creative"?
If a museum can include a small portion of a frame around a public domain painting and claim new copyright as a result - surely any smallest spark or creative influence qualifies, including choosing a single word and choosing the model and time and which output is selected does as well.
The idea of work for hire, and the notion of copyright assignment, applies to people and not machines or processes employed in the creation of a work. Your brush manufacturer would never dare try to claim that their creative selection of fibres and thus their contribution to the unique brush patterns in your painting constitutes a creative contribution to your work. Why is a complex digital model which does the same any different?
Perhaps it is copyright as a whole that is wrong and is nothing to do with AI. This is what we get for creating imaginary property as a means to finance speculative creative endeavours in a capitalist system. So, yeah. Fun times there - once again technology challenges another economic status quo.
Yes. As such it would be a last resort and even then likely done very carefully (perhaps even to the point of burning a high level human intelligence source or sources as a plausible explanation for it). We're talking "no alternative" levels of desperation.
It is and very much does. Fortunately, there is plausibly little that qualifies as a true outside context problem these days. Authors of fiction, and especially of science fiction, are mostly to thank for that.
You've described most of open source software development and yet people still write the code because they need the code and want to share the code with others because others shared with them. This isn't the problem you think it is. The problem is that most of the web's current funding model is broken and user hostile. This isn't a problem with semantic data or software development this is a problem with the capitalist model of post-scarcity information production, distribution, and control. That's what needs to change if we're to benefit in proportion to what we contribute instead of those who appropriate and exploit the most benefiting the most. Let the web, as it exists now, break - it hasn't been ours for a long time.
All photos are edited in their taking. As such, all images represent a "fake" reality. The only difference between an AI "fake" image and photograph is the camera.
Non-concessions dangled (that were never demanded as dangled but which most observers think were) are far more effective than demanded concessions given. Your comment illustrates that nicely.
Getting Intel proprietary advantage in widely used open source packages and systems is something Intel has been very, very good at doing. I use POWER9 systems and... Yeah, the software porting situation has been rather annoying (especially in media processing libraries that rely on things like embree, opencolorio and the like)
Valve's Proton/wine... Apple's M5 cpu. Software/hardware layers, especially system software and hardware interfaces that must remain stable and compatible essentially forever, aren't the strong lock in mechanisms everyone thinks they are.
If it's trained on and emulates the behaviour of people, and develops a memory of interactions in order to better serve requests, being "polite" is likely a wise idea if you want to have a useful relationship with your agent(s). People are taught a form of manners already, when interacting with desktop computers, because they display complex behaviour and "being rude" (e.g. Installing random software or poking about in internal settings without understanding of what you're requesting) will result in failure or, at a minimum the system behaving oddly towards you. Further, you seem to assume the these systems will be controlled by and owned by billionaires and we'll only be able to rent access. That's an even worse problem than people treating machines with complex behaviours like people (because they can't tell the difference!) - that's billionaires treating people like machines, and then blaming it on people acting as people do! This isn't a problem with AI and how people treat machines, this is a problem with giving sociopathic rich people more power via sole control of what is possibly the most democratising technology we've ever invented. Make sure your pointing your rage cannon at the right target, eh.
Individual ants in a colony can be understood as cells of a multicellular organism operating at a higher level of independence. It's a fascinating adaptation and one wonders what "selfishness" would even mean in such a context. Do ants have memetic behavioural evolution or are their reactions to environmental stimuli purely genetically determined? It's actually quite a fascinating question with a number of implications and avenues for exploration.
When the product costs essentially little to nothing to manufacture - in comparison to the cost charged to the consumer - it may as well be considered a durable good to the manufacturer which allows you to "borrow" it for a fee that far exceeds the cost of lifetime replacement.
However, it is irresponsible to present facts without sufficient additional context in order to avoid leading an audience to a faulty conclusion. There is such a thing a misleading an audience by omission and to do so purposefully is dishonest.