MrNeon

>and yet we can still look at it and say "yeah that was CGI".

All of it?

It doesn't lack those voiced lines because of some purposeful artistic goal.

>"privately" was off which is why it says "more privately" now

The actually significant change is the addition of "This won’t change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google."

Which was obvious to anyone with basic tech knowledge already.

>Because it's the same company that was promising the privacy.

But WHICH privacy? It never promised that websites won't know who you are, you can still login into websites, you're still in the same IP. Should it automatically disable all cookies and route you through seven proxies so you can be truly "private"?

"Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity. However, downloads and bookmarks will be saved."

Can you tell me how the original Incognito mode disclaimer was misleading?

Even if it is detectable it shouldn't be detected, why would I want websites to act differently when I'm in private mode?

And if it did block Google's services from capturing the same data as they capture in non-private mode it would act as a sort of ad blocker, why should that be a function of private mode?

What Google was "caught" doing was exactly what it was doing in non-incognito mode already. Anyone expecting the websites you visit to know you're in private mode and to not log data is just lacking basic tech knowledge.

It is silly that Google had to explicitly state that in the disclaimer.

I'm curious, what would you personally consider to be a step too far in the fight against CSAM?

How Could You Possibly Be Against This?!?!? Regulation

I use Firefox with uBlock and besides a couple of times where video start was delayed by a few seconds it has been working as well as before.

Section breaks keep the formatting changes from affecting the previous/following content so you can place and format images as you wish.

I've seen that sentiment on reddit as well and I can't phantom how you think it being on purpose is more likely than a mistake when

1 - The error is so blatantly large

2 - There is a graph without error right next to it

3 - The errors are not there in the system card and the presentation page

Sure but "Also the the sora videos are proven to be modified ads" is demonstrably false, for the demos OpenAI shared and the artist made ones.

Oh, so not the actual demo videos OpenAI shared on their website and twitter.

> Also the the sora videos are proven to be modified ads

Can't find anything about that, you got a link?

MJ coomers? The same MJ that bans accounts for coomer content?

Not sure that will change just because of a new frontend.

> What is ultimately going to be undefeated is training your own model.

From scratch?

Seems to be stock footage, is it surprising makeup would be involved?

It is very obvious that the amount and type of damage is not the same if you clone any random person's voice or clone a political leader's voice.

It is not the same damage.

> Even if it takes a thousand tries, that means one out of thousand users would get it.

If they use that particular prompt that primes the model for regurgitation.

It's not one in a thousand of regular queries.

It is clear you're arguing from an emotional, not logical, standpoint where facts don't matter.

How can we disagree on facts? There are no billionaires just sitting on billions. They are in circulation.

Believe it or not billionaires are part of the public and those billions are in circulation. There are no dragons sitting on hoards of gold.

More importantly: money that is not in circulation doesn't affect you or me, it has the same weight on the economy as all the gold still not mined.

> I've yet to be confused about whether something is ai generated or real for more than several seconds.

How did you rule out survivorship bias?

This issue here is thinking you, holding the knowledge to 3D model, are not also a holder of capital. Capital isn't just money.

> but it's not a problem our economy seems equipped to solve

It's not a problem at all in my opinion.

> Since people like working on art projects, people will often line up to do so even when conditions and pay don't economically square with their effort.

The pay has only to be accepted to be fair. You're free to start your own production company that pays more "fairly" but you'll find yourself with fewer opportunities to give people this "awe" than the company that can finance more projects.

> To benefit from this vocational awe

Warner Bros. is losing money by scrapping the movie, how are they benefiting in this case?

Is a farmer exploiting somebody's need for food?

Money isn't consumed and it only has value when used.

Neither are the things in question, the resources for movie making are not public, crew isn't public, actors aren't public. It's not a public resource in any way.

"the public" and "public" are two different things. the labor and resource markets are private, not public.

The penalty is that they lose money at the end of the day. It is not a sustainable business practice.

> wastes the time and effort of everyone involved in the production with no recourse

Those people were already paid for their work.