lucidinferno

I didn’t read this as fanboy-ism. It’s simply the state of things. If another company wants to step up and produce a series of tech that’s as unfragmented as Apple, one that provides rudimentary protection and privacy, one that shuns ads and doesn’t depend on tracking for its revenue, I’m ready for it.

Someone hide his Mystery Box.

Perhaps he used something like the program at Regal Cinemas. For around $20 a month, you can view unlimited movies.

Ah. The Russian trolls/bots have discovered lemmy. It was nice while it lasted.

I hear you, and I thought about that before posting the comment, but does method matter? Does human skill in something make it any more right, or does a computer being directed to do something make it any more wrong? The final product is essentially the same, no matter how it was achieved.

Whether I, unprovoked, physically attack someone or I command my dog to attack someone, I’m being held responsible for the attack. It’s not so much the method or the tool that was used as it is the product, because the act is wrong.

Better yet, to your point, whether I draw the Simpsons and sell that image or print an image of the Simpsons and sell it, it’s considered wrong without permission of Groening.

The question is: Is it wrong to impersonate without intention of deceiving, using any method? I’m not arguing for or against. Simply asking moral questions. It’s a quandary, for sure.

How is the AI impersonation of Carlin different from when Paramount used actors who looked like Queen Elizabeth or Barbara Bush, or human impersonators who sound just like the real person they’re impersonating (besides the obvious difference)?

I’m not saying Dudesy is in the right. Making an AI system sound like someone somehow feels different than an impersonator doing the same thing. But I don’t know why I feel that way, as they’re extremely similar cases.

From Bard:

“ No, views are not counted when I watch a video as Bard.”