Not stupid, but I think it's fair to say "careless about/unaware of the wider impact of their work".

What do you mean by wider impact? Model collapse would be the opposite of a wider impact: it's an immediate impact, and I'm fairly sure the people training these models have good incentives to avoid that.

Eg by filtering data, by procuring better data, by applying techniques for making do with more limited data (we used to have a lot of those, and they are still known), or you can also adapt your training process to be less vulnerable to model collapse. Just because some researchers have shown that this happened for the models they tested, doesn't mean it has to be a universal thing.

You could, you'd just license them at creation time for X years. It would stop large corporations hoarding everything.

a licensing agreement is not work for hire - work for hire means the person doing the hiring owns the copyright, not the person who did the work.

That's how it works now, but we're talking about changing it. That's the context of the conversation.

> You could have streamers watch unpopular (modern) movies with their audience. Or a youtuber could read a book to their viewers (listeners).

Why is this something that the government should promote?

It's just an example of culture being more varied than just Disney or Marvel.

> with Sora some of that ability democratized

No it didn't; OpenAI had control.

Saying Sora democratised video generation is like saying that landlords democratised home ownership.

OOP is great. "OOP is the one perfect paradigm for all coding" was the craze.

The answers to those questions have been clear for a while; it approaches concern trolling to keep on pretending to ask them in wide-eyed innocence.

Yes, revenge porn is very effective at causing harm, even though it can be generated.

No, because 'plausibly deniable' has never worked for social consequences and shame.

> He hit the targets in 2 minutes, using 11 arrows. After further breakdowns and repair work, Adam and Jamie accomplished the feat with 15 arrows in 1 minute and 50 seconds.

Faster, sure, but not more accurate--10 seconds less but 4 more arrows. Faster itself is also debatable, depending on whether or not you factor in the breakdowns.

Breakdowns aren't relevant, as Mythbusters slapped it together over a few days, and are uncertain of the design. The Greeks had years to perfect it, and great knowledge and expertise building with these materials.

As another poster mentioned, the time comparison is unfair too.

In terms of accuracy, how many days or weeks did they spend learning the tool?

If the time and accuracy comparisons are unfair, then they shouldn't have been made in the first place. Being corrected on a claim that isn't true isn't grounds for outrage.

What I wrote was factual; there are all sorts of reasons to use such machines other than being faster and more accurate than the best human archers, but it still is not correct to claim that they are.

> What I wrote was factual;

I disagree; I didn't say that it was less accurate than archers, I said that it was less accurate than a #1 ranked archer in the world.

IOW, this machine is faster than a #1 ranked archer, while being almost as accurate (15 arrows/target) vs 11 arrows/target.

What you wrote implied that this machine was less accurate than archers, not less accurate than a #1 ranked archer. I don't think that the skill level of archers are all clustered around the top. It's more likely a bell curve so the clear majority of archers are going to be both slower than and less accurate than the machine that was tested.

You're misquoting yourself and misreading me.

> if it was faster and just as accurate as the worlds number one ranked recurve archer

You said it was 'just as accurate' as the number 1 ranked archer; it isn't. I didn't say anything about other archers or archery in general; I disagreed with your initial incorrect claim.

What did you think my point was?

The advantage is you don't need very valuable people who have been training their whole life. Even if the machine is only half as good as the empire's best archer, you can have as many as you want as quickly as you like, and they still perform better than grabbing some rando off the street and slapping a bow in his hand.

I didn't claim there was no advantage; I said the advantage wasn't accuracy.

It doesn't seem like you disagree with me here, but you've phrased it as though you do.

Agreed; again and again, we see that the utopian ideals of the tech world are only the ones that let them extract value without consideration.

It was already a solved problem with cmd/ctrl + f.

> At some point, I think we are going to have comms devices imbedded in our heads and whatnot.

This will have limited impact because, at some point shortly after that, the moon will hatch and the lunar dragons will consume our satellite infrastructure, disabling all comm devices.

You can't make policy now based on nebulous ideas about possible futures, particularly not when those ideas aren't based on any reasonable inference.