domain:nature.com
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
12m ago
So far I have given them four grandkids. So that's something. But I didn't start participating in the dating market until I was 25 and married someone they probably thought was a step down.
comicsansstein
13m ago
Toggle simplified reader view (available in Brave and Chrome, I think, the button is next to the bookmark star); or open the page style and remove the font from the rules (right click on the text -> Inspect -> in the "filter styles" box write font-family -> uncheck all the rules setting the "Charm" font).
gattsuru
29m ago
The likely worst-case legal scenario is a lawsuit followed by settling out of court for a trivial amount.
Depends on what you consider trivial. TraceWoodgrains pointed to Midler v Ford in California, and it's foundational for Californian law, but the punchline is that Ford got off scot free, and the ad agency in question was hit for 400k USD. But that's because Midler was an issue of first impression at the time, limiting evidence of 'evil motive'; contrast the later Waits v Frito where Frito-Lay and its advertising company got tapped for a combined $2m USD over an ad that "broadcast in September and October 1988 on over 250 radio stations located in 61 markets nationwide" (though the advertising company had verbally offered to indeminfy Frito-Lay before running the ad). Contrast in turn White v. Samsung, where a literal robot acting as but clearly not Vanna White, which rhymes with today's problem, and ended up at 400k USD over a fiery dissent.
It's not business-ending, at least for a business OpenAI's size -- even adjusted for inflation and for how much Californian juries hate tech companies, I'd expect closer to 1m than 100m. But for all the philosophical problems with an expansive right of publicity, it's not toothless.
philosoraptor
34m ago
the guide @No_one posted the other day on what men are actually attracted to (https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/).
Is that available anywhere in a non-stupid font? I probably wouldn't mind reading it but the typeface makes my eyes bleed.
SlowBoy
35m ago
Scarlett Johansson doesn't have an IP right to "female voices that sound vaguely like Scarlett Johansson." As long as they can produce the receipts to show that this is actually what happened, she'd have no case.
No, but she has the rights to her own likeness, which OpenAI wanted to use. Did they? That could only be known through trial, it takes one sympathetic judge to hear the case and start discovery. And I find it extremely plausible that, on a large software engineering team, someone said something bad in an email. And a settlement wouldn't look good for OpenAI's PR either.
SlowBoy
43m ago
It sounds like they wanted to use ScarJo's voice all along, got too far in development, asked permission, got rejected, and then salvaged by picking an actress who was a close as possible. A lot of work goes into these things, cadences, pitch, pronunciation; once you're far enough in you can't change voices without changing a lot of other work. I doubt it was malicious, but I wouldn't call it totally honest.
As for the "her" tweet, that could mean anything. I never watched the movie and had to have explained to me how these two things connected. I don't have an especially high opinion of tech CEOs but I imagine Altman wasn't literally thumbing his nose at ScarJo. If he were, he's open-and-shut the villain, and my opinion if tech CEOs isn't that low.
Disagree with the posters saying this is nothing or even a win for OpenAI. ScarJo is popular, tech CEOs are not, and ScarJo has something of a case. This absolutely will have sway with people at the White House, or Brussels, who are looking for excuses to meddle in AI. And it only takes one sympathetic judge to establish a precedent that makes it harder for everyone. OpenAI will be fine, of course, because more and more regulation will ensconse them in a nice monopoly. Sorry anon, AI is too dangerous, and it looks like you don't have a license.
TheRealMcCoy
44m ago
Do you mind posting the poem in Finnish
Absoluto
44m ago
I think I just realized I had been mixing up Rashida Jones and Johannssons voice this whole time
I like Lindsay's take on the whole DEI. Paraphrasing:
Diversity means whatever is opposing the cultural hegemony. That is why room full of women feminists can be diverse and why Larry Elder can be a Black Face of White Supremacy. So in practice, diversity means that you have to welcome subversive elements into the company/movement/club or whatever, diversity needs to be ensured by cadre of political commissars who themselves are experts on diversity.
Inclusion means that you are welcoming to "diversity", it is making sure that the subversive elements can have free reign. The basic form of inclusion is basically censorship - you will be subject to certain "ethical standards", that you will not do hate speech or microagressions. The advanced level of inclusion is called belonging, this means that you now have to be active and supportive of these elements: you have to put pronouns into your bio, you have to get rainbow keychain for your company card and so forth.
Equity means adjusting shares in order to make citizens A and B equal on basis of diversity. This is your cookie cutter socialist redistribution so that subversive elements get necessary resources to thrive and multiply, but now expanded to other domains such as positions of power inside companies or in casting of movies or moderating teams of some random forum. As with other socialist movements that were also very keen on redistribution, it has to be enforced by diversity and inclusion experts - those are the vanguard forces that will at first enforce equitable society until this becomes automatic as when socialism is supposed to voluntarily turn into communism.
No_one
56m ago
Russians believed defenses were going to crumble because enough people are bribed. They targetted anti-air installations etc but iirc weren't even hitting command posts and definitely not blowing up soldiers in barracks. It was no 'Shock & Awe'.
That changed after it became clear it'll go on. They blew up almost the entire 'International Legion' base, with the exception of one building where both missiles were intercepted and/or failed. It wasn't executed perfectly, the missiles didn't arrive within a brief window so most people got out..
I would like to think it wouldn’t have happened.
Nah. It'd have happened, the difference is they'd not have underestimated it. Russia is a state born in warfare. They're not blessed by protective seas like Americans or Britain. And after WW2, you can hardly blame them wanting to keep neutral states on their border.
Sure, these days you can always just nuke the invaders after they cross the border, and it's not even a big deal contamination wise. But the idea is not instinctively attractive to most people.
So is this failure because of corrupt or incompetent procurement? Or were we just not expecting it to come to this?
Recent funny factoid I learned. The weapon Lancet was inspired with, Israeli Hero-120 was sold to Hungary for $350k per suicide drone. Russian Lancets were on export for $35k. Actual price to build them is almost certainly <$10k even in low series production.
Switchblade 600, an equivalent weapon, costs $120k. These are all electric drones without thermal sights with comparable ranges.
Is this efficiency?
Some of them have also wondered why the penguinball speaks with a German accent and is a talented scientist.
More options
Context Copy link