Nah, you could definitely make one. Ensure the petrol is completely aerosolized, so that it burns completely and quickly. Now it just needs to be able to burn oxygen out of a room faster than it can get in. Or it could use the burning petrol to generate coumpounds and co2 to suffocate the fire. Get yourself basically a petrol powered weedeater and replace the rope with some sort of heat dissipater. As it spin its shoots the heat elsewhere, somewhere safer.
… that “style” is what makes modern games suck. They lack that authenticity. Rare’s games had personality.
Banjo kazooie and dk64 were tops, you take that back right now
And to be fair, the easiest way to tell someone doesnt belong in society is when they start spouting hitlers views. A little litmus test, as a treat
Thats a super cool outlook! Props to him for coming up with it. I really appreciate the response, i like your insights. I pretty much agree with all of that. There is another form though, people that have struggled with suicide their entire life, and for immutable reasons will continue to stuggle with until they die. For those people, there should be a humane path. But filtering out those from the temporarily depressed seems a gargantuan feat.
Here i was imagining “valve classic” was somehow a wildly popular game ive never heard of
I do not recall, although if i did it clearly wasnt much of a hindrance. We do seem to be in agreement on this, although i have a tangentially related question for you. Do you believe suicide should be a human right?
Ok, then we are in agreement. That is a good idea.
I think that at low levels the tech should not be hindered because a subset of users use the tool improperly. There is a line, however, but im not sure where it is. If that problem were to become as widespread as, say, gun violence, then i would agree that the utility of the tool may need to be effected to curb the negative influence
Ok, people will turn to google when they’re depressed. I just googled a couple months ago the least painful way to commit suicide. Google gave me the info I was looking for. Should I be mad at them?
… so the article should focus on stopping the users from doing that? There is a lot to hate AI companies for but their tool being useful is actually the bottom of that list
As someone that is allergic to powdered aluminum, is she aware that almost half the sticks you find at the store are aluminum free?
They were making a joke. That being said, im not familiar with lumber or imperial<->metric conversions so their second point was lost on me, so thanks.
Inglish was the only thing to trip me up
Also, for what it’s worth, having read your othwrs comments, it really does seem like you are going to make a good father. In the end, dedication is far more important than any fleeting emotion. You might connect with them, you might not. That’s a gamble that might never pay off for you. But the fact that are you willing to put in the dedication even without feeling that attachment is admirable, and is a neccassary trait for a father. You are not a bad father, you made an ill thought out choice, not neccassarily even a mistake until you deem it so. So long as your continued choice, regardless of the circumstances, is dedication, the odds increase every day that the child will connect with you regaurdless of whether you connect with them. And thats whats important now. You are their father first and foremost, and you are currently doing a sound job maintaining that. As for your wife, I don’t really have any advice. I’m sure you’ve already heard or thought of any thing I could tell you you shouldve done, or shouldve told her. It sounds like you’ve already exhausted my ideas for things you can do to help her. I hate to sound unempathetic, but I don’t really know what else to say.
Copyrighting voices to defeat AI would achieve nothing. Modern AI’s can be overtrained to the point where they strongly resemble their training data, but that is a problem that will be fixed within the next 5 years, which is way earlier than we will see any legislation regarding AI if our geriatric government is anything to go by. After that, AI will generate its “own” content that will be legally protected as its intellectual property.
I base this off of the fact that every media from humans is inspired by previous media. Fundamentally, once it stops directly plagiarising, there is no legal distinction between what a human would be doing and what an AI would be doing, unless we want to come up with a legal classification of “human” that explicitly rejects AI.
That opens up a whole new can of worms though. If you define human to be having human dna, does that mean the 3 babies they have been genetically altered are not human? Or are they, because they comtain at least some human dna? Does that mean i can give my AI a vestigial organ and now its legally protected? Does it have to run off a brain? What is a brain? If i duplicate the neural connections in a brain with mosfets down to every single connection, that is indisputably a human intelligence running on possibly non human hardware depending on the word of law. Or is it a human intelligence? They would react the exact same way to their organic counterpart, down to having the same memories and emotions. Does their non-biological hardware preempt them from being human? Does a pacemaker? Or neuralink?
Theres a lot to be worked out here, but it seems to me to be much less problematic to target the people wanting to misuse AI rather than targetting the tool itself.
I mean tbh yeah but i dont think you can say that in this sub. The guy already knows he fucked up. Hes at least making an effort to unfuck his up. Better late than never
God I remember deep fried memes. That was around when i decided humanity needed to be reset.
If an extra $20k isnt worth jail time to you, you aint broke lol