FaceDeer

Ferengi like casinos that don't go bankrupt.

Must be another example of Trump's good genes! The best, big huge beautiful genes!

And conversely, if the Russians are having trouble in Mali they might have to send more resources there. That means less for deployment to Ukraine.

Basically, it's all one big military. Hurt it where it's weakest and that pain is felt everywhere.

Proof-of-work has inherent centralization pressures due to economy of scale. You get more profit per hash per second of mining power when you've got a bigger mining operation. That's not the case for proof-of-stake.

I was talking about how music recordings used to be perceived. You came in and responded by talking about something unrelated, and then got upset at me because what I was talking about wasn't what you were talking about.

All of that stuff you just said right now is irrelevant to the things I was talking about. I know that a recording is meant to capture art that a human made. What does that have to do with how they were perceived back in the 1930s?

I'm fine with changing topics, but I'm not so fine with being berated for not having been talking about the thing you wanted to talk about in the first place.

If you go back up the thread a bit, you'll find that I started talking about recordings long before you or RedAggroBest came into it. You are the one who's trying to compare things to the subject that was not being talked about.

And recordings certainly did destroy jobs. Did you not know that theatres had live performers playing music for shows?

Not to mention that technology is continuing to advance in new and unexpected ways.

We're getting close to artificial womb technology, for example. There are already artificial wombs that are being experimented with as a way to save extremely premature babies that wouldn't survive in a conventional incubator, for example.

Commodity humanoid robots are also in development, and AI has taken surprisingly rapid leaps in development over the past two years.

I could see a possibility where in a couple of decades a human baby could be born from an artificial womb and raised to adulthood entirely by machines, if we really really needed to for some reason. Embryo space colonization is the usual example given, but it could also potentially work as a way to counter population decline due to people simply not wanting to do their own birthing and child-rearing.

The main problem with adding your own page is ensuring that the "no original research" rule is followed. In principle, everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable by third parties so they can check it. So if you write an article about yourself and say "Their dog's name is Chesterfield" there needs to be some kind of external source that other editors can use to check whether that's true. People writing about themselves often overlook that sort of thing. A classic example is a problem Philip Roth had trying to correct a Wikipedia article about a book he'd written, Wikipedia can't simply "take his word for it."

The other major problem is the "neutral point of view" rule. It's very difficult to write about yourself in a neutral manner so it's a safe assumption to scrutinize the neutrality of one's own edits about oneself very closely.

Probably the best way to go if you're notable is to ensure that you've got a detailed biography of yourself published somewhere and then point Wikipedia editors at it. And don't get possessive about your Wikipedia article, it's likely going to end up saying something you didn't want it to say and there's not a lot you can do about that if it's within their rules.

A surprising number of "file formats" these days are really just zip files with a standard for the filenames and folders contained within. There's likely a ton of wonderful secrets like these to be found in the collective dataspace of humanity.

Yes, which is why it should light a fire under the voters. The Democrats can literally point to the previous example and say "look, this is exactly what will happen if the Republicans win."

I'm not missing your point. I'm just talking about something other than that specific point you're making. I'm not talking about what specific involvement humans had in any of this. I know that a recording of a human playing an instrument is a recording of a human playing an instrument whereas an AI-generated piece of music was not played by a human.

I'm just describing what people at the time were saying. People at the time were decrying the soulless nature of "canned music", complaining about how it was going to destroy creativity and jobs and all that. And then it didn't, life moved on, and nobody complains about "canned music" any more. It was just their opinion and opinions changed under the weight of pragmatism.

I expect it'll be the same with AI-generated stuff. Whether AI is a person, whether a human played it originally or not, that's not going to matter. This is a question of popular opinion.

Even recorded music had an artist behind it.

And yet, as I linked above, there was a hue and cry back when it first came out about how it didn't have an artist behind it. A quote from one of the anti-recorded-music advertisements at the time:

Tho’ the Robot can make no music of himself, he can and does arrest the efforts of those who can.

and:

300 musicians in Hollywood supply all the “music” offered in thousands of theatres. Can such a tiny reservoir of talent nurture artistic progress?

and:

We think the public will tire of mechanical music and will want the real thing.

It all sounds extremely familiar now. I expect this too shall pass, and a few years from now AI-generated music will be just a routine thing.

AI-generated voice over is already pretty common on Youtube already, to link more directly to the subject of this particular thread.