cboswel1

For the average citizen, probably not, but imagine you are a celebrity, politician, government contractor, tech CEO/employee with access to IP. It's not that difficult to hash out someone's algorithm to get enough of a psychological profile on the person to initiate a detailed social engineering campaign.

Dawg, we both know the moment there is any share holder value to be found in the tech, the TOS changes real quick. Look at Open AI.

Hey, maybe the bot creator will be kind enough to add a racist chat integration with the agent so you'll feel right at home in the COD lobby.

VC and private equity vultures have been buying up FTX debt at a loss since the collapse, with this being the singular reason why, to make a huge profit off the Anthropic shares. Any retail investor that sees this as a possibility of getting their money back is about to be disappointed once again.

Who owns a person’s likeness? Now that we’re approaching text to video of a quality that could fool an average person, won’t this just open a whole new can of worms if the training models are replicating celebrities? The ambiguity around copyright when something on paper is in the style of seems to fall into an entirely separate category than making AI generated videos of actual people without their consent. Will people of note have to get a copyright of their likeness to fight its use in these models?

Nearly 85% of ALL water used in Utah is for Agriculture, with 45% specifically used for Alfalfa farming...less than 1% of the state's GDP comes from Agriculture.