The Riker split depended on a plant on that one particular planet. Maybe it cannot be replicated.

Fully embracing that technology would have loads of chaotic outcomes…maybe they forbade it or something? Ripe for abuse…the ability to make infinite free clones or people…

Do you eat meat?

I’m with you OP.

I find the choice between interacting with AI and social media to be a choice between a rational conversation and an emotionally unpleasant one.

We use social media because we’re addicted to the unpleasantness: the frustratingly reductionistic, biased, insulting and manipulative attempts at argumentation…you need a human for that.

No.

Being a persuasive communicator and recruiting people to one’s political agenda has never been a matter of pure logic and reason: going around insulting “the other side” will not work.

Not that anything would: I judge the value of X by X. X could have been made by a sandstorm: if it’s beautiful it’s beautiful.

A piece of music, for example, is either enjoyable or it isn’t. Admittedly AI music has a way to go yet - but it’s clearly already superior to a percentage of human made music.

The very concept of “hallucination” and the choice of that word in this context shows how retarded the entire debate had become.

A machine cannot hallucinate because it cannot have an experience.

The output is either pleasing or displeasing, an accurate and useful response to a request or not. To claim that all AI products are “ugly and useless” is a patently absurd position: were the same thing made by a human a decade ago it would have been deemed as “good, beautiful, useful, and valuable.”

Is that something you know or something you choose to believe?

What do you hope to achieve with the personal attacks? You’ll only make me dislike “your side” even more. It only reveals how unpersuasive your position is…if you resort to shaming and insult to bully people into your position.

You care so much about water waste and the environment…but do you eat meat?

If so…all of a sudden your “rational justifications for an ethical position you have taken without bias” cease to be coherent with your other lifestyle choices.

As for “AI Slop” [an obvious propaganda term, designed to be reductionist] and its lack of X, Y and Z: it’s literally drawing on an ocean of X,Y and Z in the first place - the sum total of all X, Y and Z driven human artistic and creative endeavour.

As with so many political discussions: I suspect this one is pointless. Two sides, both alien to the other. I’m as unlikely to bring you round as you are to bring me around.

It processes information to generate new (often very beautiful) works: just like human artists.

Opposing Israel on r/Worldnews was what got me permabanned from Reddit 🤣

OP is baffled by the pro-AI people.

I’m baffled by the anti-AI people.

Fundamentally it seems bizarre to judge the quality of, for example, an image or a piece of music, by the process that created it: the proof is in the pudding.

I’m amazed at what AI is generating…it seems kind of fake to pretend a beautiful image isn’t beautiful when you discover it’s made by AI.

The arguments against AI are annoyingly reductionist or biased: e.g. focusing on occasional “hallucinations” as if the majority of AI productions aren’t, basically, impressive (or, at least, what was asked for by the user).