But it might decide that by definitely killing that little girl, there's a perfectly good pair of kidneys, liver etc that someone with a 60% chance of making it needs.AI has no heart; it will never make the irrational decision i.e. a heart transplant for a little girl who only has a 3-5% chance of making it.
I'm as paranoid/ negative as they come, but a little Mark Twain is always refreshing.
And forum posts it's scraping.Of course, the answers will depend on the algorithms introduced by the programmer.
I'd say the difference is in "art as a career." When we say art, we think of someone making original music or paintings or whatever, but the reality is that a lot of the work available is making the music or visuals for an advertisement, website promoting a product or a news piece. While that's creative work too, it's also the kind of work that can be replaced by AI generated content because it doesn't require a whole lot of artistic vision. As we doom scroll the internet, we aren't necessarily thinking too much about who made the artwork for the content we consume, because it's not the main focus."AI" is too often confused with what is actually machine learning - which I think is an issue because to speak anything but ill of "AI" in the current social context (at least, in mine) is almost taboo. There's a big difference between using ML to create a guitar tone like tonex and AI actually replacing human artistic expression, but it's all in the same boat to most people. I'm not trying to say there is no risk of that, but I think the notion that ai is replacing humans as artists and creators is probably a little overblown presently. I don't know about you all, but I don't care how good something looks or sounds - the minute I know it wasn't created by a person, it loses all artistic value I might have implicitly given it. You can recreate art, but you can't recreate the artist and the context