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…

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?

It’s my first 24 hours here. If I could get paid for saying what I believe I’d gladly take the money. But honestly, I’m just a Reddit refugee - and have no idea about the ideological bent of the users of this platform (though I’m quickly learning it’s as hysterical, fanatical and willing to use disingenuous argumentation and rhetoric as those on Reddit).

My real reason for joining: I’m addicted to having my faith in humanity destroyed by interacting with terrible people on the internet - but got permabanned from Reddit for speaking against Israel on r/Worldnews.

So thanks for delivering: 24 hours and I’m already being insulted and called a bot because I think AI is impressive and refuse to join the “Everything AI produces has 0% value” nonsense.

It’s literally got to the point where if I want an actual rationale, balanced, non-hysterical discussion: I go to ChatGPT. If I want an emotionally unpleasant, annoyingly irrational, rhetorically disingenuous and frustrating argument that goes nowhere: I feed my social media addiction instead and talk with a human.

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.

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).