Genuinely, are you capable of discussing the post for even a sentence?
At least Epp tried to make a point. It was hiding a thought-terminating "inevitability" cliche that didn't stand up to scrutiny, but at least an attempt was made.
XLE
joined 1 year ago
George Lucas must have an indefensibly bad position, if you came here with no intent to defend it
You're the one who was reminded of the rot and failure of NFTs and decided to say "nuh-uh, actually people are bad instead." You're a misanthrope.
It's your job to prove these things are actually worth keeping around at all.
Please, elaborate on it. So far, all you've done is be hypocritical and whine that people disagree with you.
Why does the text content of this post look so AI-generated? If this is from the book, I'm sure not reading it.
And if it's handwritten, what does the second sentence in it even mean? Who ever defined "data" as "raw material of automated systems," and when did they start seeing it differently?
Edit: out of morbid curiosity, I checked. The whole book is like this.
It doesn't seem coincidental that "AI are the future" people heavily imply nobody should resist it.
Do you have a point about the article, or are you just here to cry about "personal attacks" in the middle of making one?
I don't see anything in that report that shouldn't be applied to adults either. Google shouldn't be providing curated instructions for creating deepfakes for anybody.
Ironically, you're the one who chose to make a snide remark about people you disagree with, instead of a productive and relevant comment.
Of course an AI booster would be a misanthrope too.
If by "it'll decay into a pathetic corpse of its former self after destroying things with actual value," then sure.
But we both know that's not what you were trying to imply lol
I'm sure you could argue that Unit 731 had value and another one could create more, but it's your job to prove it without providing further evidence of misanthropy.