I suspect that was intentional. Lovecraft and many of his peers were anti-Semitic, and crafting names for cosmic horrors that vaguely sounded like Hebrew would mesh with that.
Not parent, but simply because I don't have the income needed to pack up and get out. No savings, no remote job. Clawing your way up from a start at $8.40/hr takes a long damn time just to reach self-sufficiency, let alone moving across the globe.
Yes, mechanical. It's a copyright issue, I cannot offer translated books, so each user upload will get separate generated and inserted translations. Obviously the quality is not the best compared to professional translations. For that you can try beelinguapp.com or lingq.com, both mentioned in this thread. What's different in my app is that it inserts translations in the text, so no additional clicking, and it allows you to upload your own books.
I've tried using LibreTranslate, GoogleTranslate, DeepL, ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 for translations - in my experience ChatGPT is the best for this use case, 3.5 is good enough and economically viable, 4 is superior, especially if you want translation in a language different than English, but expensive compared to 3.5: ~$20 for a book.
> Saturated fats convert to cholesterol, high values of which is a common health problem.
High blood cholesterol levels is a common health problem, but it doesn't follow that consuming too much cholesterol causes high blood cholesterol levels—it could be that the body can normally handle any amount of cholesterol/cholesterol precursor consumption within a wide range, but a dysfunction in the regulation mechanism results in health problems. And in fact, double-blind trials seem to support this theory:
"Evidence from observational studies conducted in several countries generally does not indicate a significant association [of dietary cholesterol] with cardiovascular disease risk."
> An appeal to nature fallacy
The theory of natural selection predicts that human metabolism is best adapted to consuming food similar to what was available for most of our evolutionary history.
GP said nothing about dietary cholesterol. It's well researched that high levels of saturated fats increases blood cholesterol, though. The conversion is dietary saturated fat to blood serum cholesterol.
It's the same ethical gap that dogs virtually any AI art project. In your example, some other actor did work in exchange for some satisfactory payment (possibly free). In the case of AI synthesis, actors' work is plagiarized without even compensation.
> In your example, some other actor did work in exchange for some satisfactory payment (possibly free).
In that example, someone else was paid instead of the original actor while using their voice, doing the job that neither the original voice actor nor copyright holder approved (in the context of NSFW mods the article is talking about). What makes it more ethical all of a sudden? What makes it less of a plagiarism?
It seems to me that the actors in the article don't want their names to be associated with NSFW mods in particular (which is understandable), and the AI part is a red herring.
This isn't a new debate in the modding community. There were all kind of opinions voiced. Robbie is not fond of AI voices, but he tracks NSFW mods because they are a natural concern.
Anyways, it is the custom there that Nexusmods moderation reacts to suspected mod asset stealing and such an issue can be raised by any website user (as mod authors often leave and are no more around). However, for the voice cloning/impersonating, it requires a notification from the original VA, or some other credible confirmation that the particular VA is against this.
If we want to compare this to libraries, it’s necessary to redefine the role of libraries.
For the analogy to work, libraries now provide the service of generating new books/stories based on works under the library’s care. As a library patron, you’ll give the librarian a prompt, and they’ll generate a book for you.
This book will be intrinsically dependent on the authors of all of the books in the library, but those authors will not be credited or paid for the new work.
“Librarian, please generate a fantasy novel in the style of George R. R. Martin that continues where A Dance with Dragons left off”.
If this is what libraries did, authors would not want their books there.
This is not what libraries do, and the analogy does not hold up.
It's worse then that, LOnce that's legal, AI will have no need for fresh input. It'll takeover the business, surround the talent in sheer volume so even if someone wants "real" there's no metric to easily find it without huge effort.
It plagiarizes then effectively puts them out of business.
> It plagiarizes then effectively puts them out of business.
Isn't that a concern for any artist? We've had this discussion with digital art and photography, and decades ago with electronic music, remixes and sampling.
AI is just enabling this on a larger scale, which will disrupt many fields, but copyright law will broaden, and artists will find ways to adapt or change careers.
> We've had this discussion with digital art and photography, and decades ago with electronic music, remixes and sampling
We had very different discussions about all of those things.
There is a certain structural similarity between AI and these past advanced in the form of: new thing disrupts old thing.
But I think it’s deeply problematic to take that analogy much further. Take digital art. I don’t think it’s fair to compare the impact of the advent of digital painting tools with the advent of tools that systematically ingest all paintings and the remove the need for the original artist entirely.
If removing the artist entirely was part of that discussion, I suspect the tooling and legal landscape would look rather different today.
> AI is just enabling this on a larger scale, which will disrupt many fields
“This” and “larger scale” are doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Nuclear weapons just enable this (blowing things up) at a larger scale. But these weapons also show us that scale introduces risks and factors not present in any prior iteration of the profession of blowing things up.
My point is not that AI art tools are as dangerous as nuclear weapons, obviously, but that “it’s just x at larger scale” breaks down when the shift in scale is large enough.
The result is something entirely new, for which the past rules of engagement no longer apply.
I do agree in part. Scale matters, and the challenges humanity faces with AI are much greater than with any disruptive technology of the past.
That said, we've had similar challenges before, and society has adapted. I'm pessimistic about the long-term existential risks of AI, but the short-term disruptions to jobs and the legal changes that will be required seem manageable, and are not the doomsday scenario that the media makes them up to be.
> But I think it’s deeply problematic to take that analogy much further. Take digital art. I don’t think it’s fair to compare the impact of the advent of digital painting tools with the advent of tools that systematically ingest all paintings and the remove the need for the original artist entirely.
The invention of photography in the 19th century certainly had the same, if not greater, impact for painters. Yet artists adapted, and paintings were able to coexist with the new technology. Photography opened up new avenues for art, but it didn't eliminate the demand for the traditional art form.
So will happen with AI-produced art as well, I think. The markets and our media feeds will be flooded with it, but the demand for human-produced digital art will still exist. It will be challenging to filter and curate human art, especially as the line will be blurred, and many human artists will take advantage of AI. But I don't think any of it will entirely make human artists obsolete.
Anyway, this is all speculation from my side, so I concede that I may be wrong, but it's interesting to think about, and time will tell.
> At its peak, the plant employed over a thousand Navajos, the majority of whom were women. In The Shiprock Dedication Commemorative Brochure released by the Fairchild company, the Diné (Navajo) women circuit makers were celebrated as "culture workers who produced circuits as part of the 'reproductive' labor of expressing Navajo culture, rather than merely for wages." This claim was based on the opinion that circuits of the electronic chips had a mere resemblance with the complex geometric patterns on the Navajo rugs. Paul Driscoll, the Shiprock plant manager, spoke of the "untapped wealth of natural characteristics of the Navajo...the inherent flexibility and dexterity of the Indians." Although highly successful during its operation, the plant was closed in 1975.[18] While the Fairchild corporation claims the Diné women were chosen to work in the Shiprock plant due to their "'nimble fingers'" as previously noted, the women of the Shiprock reservation were actually chosen as the workforce due to a lack of labor rights asserted by the women in addition to "cheap, plentiful workers and tax benefits".[19]
Always love to see updates from this project. Miegakure is the peak of game design: not merely a Skinner box or masturbatory fantasy, it's an honest exploration of what-if, so far outside the realm of our daily 3D experience that the process of modeling it has been something akin to fundamental research.
SIGGRAPH actually released a technical paper by Marc Ten Bosch a couple years back. [0] Developers like him who put a decade+ of work into a project just because they love the subject are a direly needed example of what hard work can mean instead of a 'grindset' mentality.
Uhhh let's at least wait until it's released. There's a lot of cool stuff out there already, we don't need to be declaring this development-hell game as the peak before it's even out.
We already have the concept of a primary residence. I'd strongly support laws that impose fast-ramping tax burdens on further ownership. Possibly with a more modesty burden for a second home—say, a family purchasing one to pass to children, or preparing for retirement—but I don't feel that there's any acceptable reason for owning several homes.
Because your "right" of owning several homes goes against the human right of adequate housing. Jurisprudence tells you the order of rights and human rights come first.
I believe that everyone has a right to food, but laws banning people from storing or consuming too much food are not an important part of the anti-hunger movement.
The problem is that the supply of housing is too low. Banning investment in housing might even make this problem worse by reducing the amount of real resources dedicated to construction, making home-building a riskier and less-appealing enterprise.
> I believe that everyone has a right to food, but laws banning people from storing or consuming too much food are not an important part of the anti-hunger movement.
If the supply of food drops too low, eg. during the world wars, you do get rationing which does exactly that.
Why should someone have a right to a house built by someone else? Just because someone else doesn't have a house doesn't mean they get to take a house that you built even if you already have a house.
If the housing supply weren't artificially limited, this might make sense. But it makes more sense to remove the regulations preventing more housing from being built instead.
Theres a fixed amount of land on earth and we can't develop every inch without screwing ourselves cover long term.
In fact we should put a limit on any new developments on currently undeveloped land...
In that context, were already dramatically behind the ball on ensuring enough housing unless we take housing from those who already have excess housing.
Yes, we can build condos etc, but they don't exist now and there aren't enough planned.
It’s funny that you use quotes around “right” when referring to property rights, which are well established as natural rights. All while making the claim that adequate housing is some kind of fundamental human right. It might be a government benefit in some places, but it’s hardly a human right.
If housing is a right, then it would make more sense to list the things that are not human rights. What else, Diet Coke delivered daily? Maybe a new car?
That one always blows my mind when people drop “housing is a human right”. So everyone has an inalienable right to the property and labor of another person? What if you were in John Locke’s state of nature and you were not participating in any social contract, would you still have that right?
But all rights are made up – they're simply things that we think are really important to provide each other. I can only assume that when a person says "housing is a human right", they mean "housing is something important enough that I think we should guarantee access to it".
If someone says something that seems ridiculous, but they're speaking seriously, sincerely, or about a matter they've given some thought, then there might be a chance you're simply misunderstanding them.
Tangentially: "an inalienable right to the property and labor of another person" is not that ridiculous of an idea. You already have a right to the labor of other people in nearly every society on earth. If the people where you live pay taxes, and even if you didn't avail yourself of public roads and whatnot, you still enjoy having a court system and law enforcement to uphold your rights, you enjoy a military to defend your country, you may enjoy the stability of a currency, and so on, and (if you are a native citizen) you get all of this merely for having been born. [And people don't get to opt out – people have to pay taxes even if they want to live alone in the wilderness, and to be relieved of that burden, in the United States we have to pay a fee to renounce our citizenship, even assuming we have the means to emigrate.] If you think at only a slightly larger scale, you might view us all as being stuck on Earth together and all members of a global society, unable to avoid participating to at least some degree.
[To be clear, I personally don't like the idea of owing anyone anything, especially when I presumably didn't choose to be born, but life is inherently unfair to begin with and also very difficult, so I can understand someone arguing that it's worth giving up the fight for a particular fairness in exchange for a better life overall. Also, other people may not have the same notions of fairness as me; I can imagine someone arguing that guaranteed access to housing makes the world more fair.]
I'd agree that it would be ridiculous to claim housing is a "natural right" as opposed to a potential "legal right", since it's a contradiction almost definitionally. Although not everyone agrees that natural rights exist, or what they are precisely.
All rights are made up, of course – nature grants us nothing, we grant ourselves rights. That said, it's hard for me to tell if you're not reacting in bad faith. Every person needs a place to live,† but they obviously don't need diet Coke and they usually don't need more than one place to live.
† You'll die without sleep, you'll die from exposure to the cold, you'll catch disease or be unable to hold a job if you don't bathe or clean yourself, you'll suffer from serious mental illness if you've not a space that's reasonably safe and secure some fraction of the time, and so on.
Perhaps joe-collins supports a steep tax discount on a first home - much like a society might apply a lower tax rate on books and apples than on Lamborghinis.
Who is the number one “hoarder” of houses in the U.S.? When I bought my house, all I had to deal with (as far as I know) was the bank and the prior owner, who seemed happy to sell.
1 is pretty easy to experimentally deduce -- simply go live outdoors wherever you are. Skip the tent, that's housing too. Just make yourself a little bedding spot in a tree somewhere like our ancestors did.
Pretty sure in most of the world, you wouldn't last long without some form of shelter or housing.
