If I created a battery that didn’t need charging until 100 years later, I probably would not sell the tech to phone manufacturers like Apple. We have seen some impressive miniaturization with the technology including the batteries in terms of capacity vs. size. That came by iteration; it got better with most new models. It’s conceivable that if a battery would store a century of juice we would have maxed out development of the rest of the device. But tbh I don’t think that will happen. There will be new modems, new chips, new storage technology. But the battery would stay the same? Apple in particular would hate that. They would also prefer you buy a new device every time or every x years at least. So they’ll put a smaller one into the device and sell the wonder battery as a power bank. They will also cater to the hiker and prepper segments of the market.

Also, people born in countries with good healthcare today have a good chance of living well over 100. So they might be utterly confused at 112 when their phone suddenly shuts down.

Never gonna give you up. Never gonna let you go… Be careful what you wish for.

I think this is far more normalized in the US to bring god into everything. After all, it’s one nation, under god. And in god they trust! It’s on the money after all, thoughts and prayers. And lordy, the language is full of religious references, from oh my god gosh golly to dang darn dammit. There is also the performative “I was praying for” whatever, jeez, Jesus help me. I’m already irritated by all these religious vestiges in the language.

Piety is also this sort of monstrance required for political office in the US. Even when it’s quite unbelievable, like in the case of 47 who would only own a bible if he could sell it. And if you’re not a Catholic or some Protestant, you have you be Mormon or Islamic just enough to tick the religious box. But we might draw the line at Scientology because that’s all just made up nonsense, isn’t it.

I find it offensive when people just assume I believe in any god. The older I get the more I think Christopher Hitchens had a point when he said that ardent believers in monotheist religions are predisposed to vote for and follow authoritarian leaders. One god, one fuehrer.

No, it doesn’t. Because I was not talking about physical sexual assault.

Nothing in law is simple. Legislators pass a law and after it passed that meat grinder it eventually gets brought up in courts where a second sausage is made by evaluating whose rights take precedence over others. And if we imagine the current US Supreme Court they will not ban deepfakes completely because it could limit the first amendment. And they would probably find in favor of the sad smelly asshole in his basement who made deepfake porn that was never meant to be public. So the creation of deepfakes will not be limited by law. The system can only react after the creation. By which point the damage is already done for the celebrity whose likeness was abused.

Right now it might be possible to get the companies to limit the models that can generate this stuff. But soon enough, maybe in a few years, it will be possible to train you own model on your terms that will run locally and if you’re savvy enough to set that up you’ll be savvy enough to sidestep any restrictions there as well.

Don’t impersonate without enthusiastic consent will not survive the tour up the legal system.

All this so-called-AI generated policy meat still needs to go through the sausage grinder in both houses, filled with humans. So I think the scandal wouldn’t be as great.

The danger depends more on who you are. If you are in a position where deepfakes could be made to undermine you in your life, there is a higher danger. If you work a desk job in an accounting firm, that risk is much lower.

Deleting all your pictures from the internet is a fig leaf. How many pictures exist in other people’s photorolls that you are in? And even if you trusted all of them implicitly, how well do they do their security?

I think at this point in time, deepfakes are ultimately identifiable. By which I don’t mean anybody can tell immediately that it is one. But on repeated viewing enough people would get suspicious and when somebody analyzes the 1s and 0s it can be made certain. Society needs to adapt a delayed response tactic. This will take time but eventually we will look at deepfakes with the same skeptical eye we developed for photoshopped images. We are in the period of adjustment lag so the jeopardy is higher today than it will be a couple of years from now.

The biggest danger is for ladies because sexualized deepfakes are not only appalling but the legal system is also lagging to catch up in many places. As soon as a believable deepfake of a famous man makes the rounds, the laws are going to be tightened ASAP though.

There is also a legal battle that needs to be fought. Can I hypothetically make a deepfake sex video of my favorite female celebrity just for my own enjoyment? I could paint her oil on canvas as long as I kept it at my house. I could write fan fic and might even get away with posting that online. Could I not make this movie just for me? And if I protected my computer in a reasonable way, can I be held accountable if some other asshole leaked it onto the internet? We’ll have the answers in 10-15 years.

I don’t think you can make all deepfakes illegal so we’ll have you find a way to live with the threat.

I’m concerned about the resources it gobbles up but I’m not skynet scared.

The effectiveness and the benefits are overhyped by the people with a financial interest in it. We call it AI but it’s only one for two there in that it is artificial. It’s a technology in its infancy. And it hasn’t found a use case that will guarantee an ROI. And the companies involved here are running out of runway.

Cannibalism hasn’t been proven yet. But even without that, rich people not getting punished isn’t mildly infuriating. We are way past that.

And the world was already shit long before we learned about any of this. Because it was possible to get away with that shit before we found out and even still after we learned a little about it.

Billionaires aren’t the majority. Turn your morose mood into a political movement that will hold them to account.

Would the order be different in an imported fridge?

If Ockham’s Razor points to the simplest possible reason of anything to be the most likely one, Drumpf’s Razor, which I have just made up, holds that the dumbest possible explanation is probably true when the incumbent US head of state is involved. These are posts by an undereducated narcissist; the choice of targets is at best accidental.

The prompt probably included “destroy Iran” and whichever model they used was like gotcha, destroying Ireland it is.

I can think of two confederacies that have flags. And you haven’t specified the feed.

Which one? And that applies both to the confederacy and the feed here.

Measuring intelligence is not like measuring a cup of flour. The IQ tests are not wholly scientific. So the premise of your question is not without controversy. But if we disregard that, then: no. Very clever people still bicker and get rubbed the wrong way. Intelligent people follow populists. Conflict is not solely the result of low intelligence. We might have different types of conflict (there are fewer incidences of fisticuffs at the chess club than at football) but not fewer.

We are not very tech savy to set things up.

Find somebody near you who is. A family member who cannot ghost you would be best.

I migrated my Photos to a more expensive service called Ente. It’s been a mixed bag for me. The backup function works well but both their desktop and mobile apps are causing me trouble. Ask me about the details if you care, I won’t bore you with that chat. But in me this has brought me to plan a switch to something self-hosted when my plan expires. I still have lots of time but I’m definitely bookmarking your post.

If you subtract the satire from the movie Mars Attacks, pretty much that. Uh uh uh.

Is asking generalized closed questions like that too simple a rhetoric tool to discuss family ties, especially around death?

Real life logic ≠ comic book logic

Grammar is only done by design in the realms of Tokkien, Martin, or Star Trek. For naturally occurring ones, the spoken language comes first, then the grammar in an effort to standardize it. So a design flaw in grammar is bit of an oxymoron for me.

Cultural norms have an influence on grammar. About 400 years ago people in England still distinguished between a familiar you (thou) and a polite you (you). And over time decided to be polite only and only retained the thous and the thees in archaic expressions. And caused the need to disambiguate the plural from the singular you with new pronouns. Japanese grammar tends to get longer the more polite and humble you want to speak. So I don’t think your can divide culture from grammar neatly. Both of them make the hypothetical exchange I made up 5x as long.