The following submission statement was provided by /u/dustofoblivion123:

From the article:

"An upcoming Supreme Court case could answer one of the toughest questions of the internet age: Should online companies be held responsible for promoting harmful speech?

The case, Gonzalez v. Google, could upend the modern internet economy, sparing no online business. A ruling against Google will likely leave internet companies — from social media platforms to travel websites to online marketplaces — scrambling to reconfigure their businesses to avoid costly lawsuits.

The case, which will be argued Feb. 21, tests whether Google’s YouTube can be held liable for automated recommendations of Islamic State terrorism videos. The company is being sued by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen who was among the at least 130 people killed in coordinated attacks by the Islamic State in Paris in November 2015."

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1194caa/google_case_at_supreme_court_risks_upending_the/j9kanx4/

>Quantum computer systems have been hailed as the future of computing, able to make calculations that could be very difficult or impossible on the “classical” computers that we use today.
>
>But they are also prone to errors, that represent one of the major issues in the practical application of the technology.
>
>Now Google researchers say they have found a way of building the technology so that it corrects those errors. The company says it is a breakthrough on a par with its announcement three years ago that it had reached “quantum supremacy”, and represents a milestone on the way to the functional use of quantum computers.
>
>Researchers at Google Quantum AI said they have found a way to lower error rates as the size of the system increases, which they describe as being at a “break-even point”.
>
>Dr Hartmut Neven, engineering director at Google Quantum AI, said while there are still challenges that lie ahead, he thinks that at this stage “we can confidently promise a commercial value” for quantum computers.

Photography couldn't replace all forms of painting. It could only replace art that attempted to replicate real life as perfectly as possible.

Ars Technica is reporting that it doesn't look like the oral arguments went well for the plaintiffs and that the justices seem to view it more of a problem with the legislation itself (a Congress problem), rather than interpretation of the legislation (a Court problem).

Bing Chat uses a better model than ChatGPT which results in better written stories. Biggest improvement is I don't have to tell Bing Chat not to start the story with "Once upon a time." It's now at the level of an intelligent 8 year old fan fiction writer that needs to write their story as fast as possible because it's almost bed time. https://pastebin.com/G8iTJmqk

Every time they improve the model it becomes a better writer. I remember when AI Dungeon had the original GPT-3 and it could not stay on topic, and that was fine tuned on stories.

Something needs to be done to ram in these social media giants before the world gets ripped apart

They curate with their algorithms. They want protections as passive hosts of information, they should have to turn off their algorithms. If they want to curate what you watch to maximize their profit, they should be responsible for what that algorithm directs people to. They don’t get to be passive hosts and active curators like a publisher at the same time.

From the article:

"An upcoming Supreme Court case could answer one of the toughest questions of the internet age: Should online companies be held responsible for promoting harmful speech?

The case, Gonzalez v. Google, could upend the modern internet economy, sparing no online business. A ruling against Google will likely leave internet companies — from social media platforms to travel websites to online marketplaces — scrambling to reconfigure their businesses to avoid costly lawsuits.

The case, which will be argued Feb. 21, tests whether Google’s YouTube can be held liable for automated recommendations of Islamic State terrorism videos. The company is being sued by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen who was among the at least 130 people killed in coordinated attacks by the Islamic State in Paris in November 2015."

I get what you mean, but gas station clerks and the like are people too. And they are suffering. Why would you judge how worthy this country is by exclusively measuring the satisfaction of it's financially secure people? That doesn't make sense to me. We don't judge other countries by how happy and robust their middle and wealthy classes are exclusively.

I myself am comfortably middle class and yet I still see that dissatisfaction is growing among all social and economic classes that aren't property owning or financially stable. That's a lot of people in America, and we need them for our society to function. Are we going to just tune out their dissatisfaction and suffering? Seems a bit callous to me...

I don't think people worried or complaining about America's future are all whiny cynical teenagers.

TRT don’t hurt either.

Lol Microsoft is such a terrible company. Everything they produce is half baked.

what is supposed to be “beneficial” to an individual? Is hunger not beneficial? If you have to fight and deploy the usage of anger in order to survive is that not beneficial? Benefit to the species and benefit to the organism is arbitrary, does a fly live in order to service itself? Yes. How? Make more flys.

I understand.

The point is, we're getting closer.

500 short stories in one month is not an insurmountable amount of content. That's the amount of reading a child is expected to do in a month in school.

Well, in that case you could argue the AI cheated. It didn't take a photo. It PAINTED the image. If a human used photoshop to create a photorealitic image that won a photography competition, they would also be cheating, and lose, if caught.

> or is the very best we can do also garbage?

It's photography. It's a hobby where if you are wealthy enough to afford the equipment and travel to exotic places and hang out for long enough to spot a cool looking animal, you can win prizes by pointing, adjusting focus, and clicking a button at the right time. It doesn't require a huge amount of skill. Someone can be a naturally talented photographer with almost no training, whereas being a highly skilled artist requires decades of practice. Don't tell me that the award winning photo of the afghan girl isn't a photo that almost any portrait photographer in a mall couldn't have managed to snag, had they been in the right place at the right time.

So maybe the problem really is we're giving wealthy people awards for mediocirity? Even art is not immune to this. There is a hell of a lot of "art" that sells for a lot of money which is literally just a pile of garbage in a corner. But hey, the AI can't produce that, yet, right? That's a physical thing.

So maybe the solution here is for artists to go back to mediums that are physical, like acrylic paint on canvas, and then sell those works for a lot of money instead of just mass printing their stuff on a laserjet? I know I wouldn't buy a laserjet image, human or AI generated, but something with acrylic or oil that has depth to the brush strokes? That's something worth hanging on your wall and paying for.

[removed]

Agreed, Chat GPT is an AI, but it is nowhere near being sentient. It’s not a great example yet. The question is more hypothetical in nature.

[deleted]

I mean automating away jobs means a group of people can now grow food automatically, and build houses more cheaply. Take matters in our own hands and become independent through automation.

Eventually, population will start rising again if the anti-aging tech is good enough. But in that eventual higher-tech future we might also have cheap fusion, cheap space travel, and really compact food synthesis, so we'll be able to support much larger populations. We're making progress towards all of these things.

Thanks for the explanation, Dennis.

Showing provable results is way more difficult than it seems and these new info is only to attract investors and money. It's way more difficult than altering a buch of genes (which we still can't do in a super secure, efficient and safe way) and call it a day. Most of aging also comes from food, exercise, pollution etc..good luck removing microplastics and pfas from the body even if you're a billionaire.

There are already services which detect plagiarism.

Those services also need to query the AI services, which must be required to report anything similar to generated content.

Is also a short term fix for student submissions.

Doesn't help if/when everyone has an AI locally on their phones / PCs.

I think there might be a rebound effect with longer living individuals. Especially if we can mix in restoring fertility on top of anti-aging. For a lot of people, not having kids is a mix of never finding someone to have kids with as well as establishing for themselves a stable future to raise any, which isn't happening within 20-30 years anymore.

They need the funding. Once they show provable results, the people with money will start pouring a bunch of it into the research hoping to extend their lives well beyond current standards.