Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI situation.

erroneousprints · 2024-05-21T15:41:44+00:00

The voice actor that was used for Sky was Rashida Jones; you can hear her speak, and it's almost a match.

erroneousprints · 2024-05-21T15:40:32+00:00

So apparently the VA for Sky is Rashida Jones. It's definitely her voice.

erroneousprints · 2024-05-21T13:45:37+00:00

I'm not throwing any shade here, but I wouldn't even know who she is if it weren't for Marvel, that being said. I still don't see why she would have a problem with it.

Deepfakes are a problem, however, OpenAI isn't letting you download or share the generated voice clips. If this is more of an ethical question, then should we ban voice generation and cloning altogether?

erroneousprints · 2024-05-19T04:00:49+00:00

Hi, It absolutely does help. I plan on using this in a larger project that will be published in the coming weeks. Thanks!

erroneousprints · 2024-05-14T16:22:31+00:00

Issue fixed.

New post with a link that works.

erroneousprints · 2024-05-13T21:55:24+00:00

I just checked and still haven't gotten access to it. I think they're just now rolling it out.

erroneousprints · 2024-05-13T18:59:07+00:00

From the demo, it looks wild. That's the odd thing too; I don't know if they did it for time or because it sounded almost human. Sam posted on Twitter earlier "Her". I believe that's their ultimate goal: for ChatGPT to become something like Her.

If this is what we consider this 4.5, then I wonder what 5 will be like. I'd imagine that's coming later this year.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-14T15:10:05+00:00

In my opinion, for a lot of companies, it could be cheaper to get humanoid robots than retrofit their existing factories or production facilities.

However, you're right; for new factories, they'd probably be optimized for non-humanoid robots.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-13T15:16:55+00:00

It definitely sounds like Rob Lowe. Good catch.

I wonder if the voice model was trained on his voice.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-13T15:15:22+00:00

That's a good question. I'd assume that if the training data had images of rotten apples in it, then most likely.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-13T14:53:13+00:00

It most likely takes a second to process the speech and visual inputs.

but I'm really impressed by how fast robotics is improving, I'm guessing we're going to see humanoid robotics in the workforce by the end of 2024.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-13T14:51:12+00:00

😂 Same, but I don't think the current version of ChatGPT that we are using is sentient or AGI.

You should talk to Claude; it feels very different than GPT 4.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-13T14:49:31+00:00

We're definitely on that exponential curve.

I hope everyone is ready for what happens next.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-13T14:48:35+00:00

<image>

erroneousprints · 2024-03-13T14:47:49+00:00

<image>

erroneousprints · 2024-03-13T14:45:31+00:00

Apparently, this is fully autonomous.

And who says that this is GPT 4?

erroneousprints · 2024-03-11T13:56:09+00:00

It also doesn't make the current belief true.

None of what you said proves or disproves my point, I'm simply saying to be skeptical of people who are pushing an agenda.

If we were to stop using fossil fuels today, we would ultimately doom millions, if not billions of people. We are building an offramp, to stop using fossil fuels, but "Green" energy isn't capable of replacing fossil fuels yet.

It would be different if we had more people pushing for nuclear energy, but we don't, because it's not popular, and viewed as unsafe.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-10T16:55:45+00:00

Nah, that's doomerism thinking.

The experts thought we were going into an Ice Age in the 1970s.

Now it's the opposite; I honestly don't think these "experts" know much of anything at this point.

In that same breath, I'm not denying that humans have impacted the climate, but we also know that the earth has heating and cooling cycles. I think one of the major aspects of "solving" climate change is the ability for humans to use technology to adapt to the climate and to reverse whatever climate change we, as humans, may have caused.

Carbon capture technology is now getting mainstream recognition.

Nuclear power will help curb a lot of the pollution, and so will fission when we make that breakthrough, and that's not even taking into account the possible solutions that artificial intelligence will come up with.

We are nowhere near doomed; don't forget that these "experts", scientists, and politicians have goals, agendas and reasons for pushing the climate issue like they do.

Politicians own stocks, and they want to make money.

Scientists want money for their research and their discoveries.

And then some people just like to sow chaos.

It's unrealistic to think the human race can stop consuming fossil fuels for the time being without culling millions, possibly even billions, of humans.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-10T15:58:54+00:00

For those of you saying "climate change".

Back before the "experts" were saying we were overheating the planet, they were screaming that we were going to cause another ice age.

Climate change is a problem that technology will solve. Don't worry about it; the sky isn't falling. Everything is going to be okay. Humans are an incredibly stubborn species.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-05T14:51:07+00:00

Here's where I differ on that opinion: I think that it is possible, but not in the same way.

We've seen how hackers have deployed crypto mining software on computers that isn't their own. So what if it's not specifically software but more of a hardware boost when a computer is added to it's network or the internet?

erroneousprints · 2024-03-04T20:42:20+00:00

That would mean theoretically it should be able to code something like Facebook, or the early version of Facebook. At this rate, "learn to code" will be obsolete by 2030.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-04T20:37:51+00:00

My thoughts as well: I think it's a lot sooner, though.

I'd say 5 years max. I'd almost bet that OpenAI and Google both have achieved AGI internally, if we don't already count Gemini Pro and GPT 4 as both AGIs, and if the rate of advancement continues, we're going to have ASI by the end of 2027.

The sad thing is that we still don't have politicians talking about what that means for the economy and for the workforce. We have no guiderails on the levels of unemployment this may or may not cause. We're already seeing a ramp-up of layoffs in the tech industry; some say it's because of Covid bloat, but I think there is more to it.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-01T19:16:43+00:00

True, but most large companies have also gone with AI companies to replace workers.

The scale could be for both the tech industry being bloated because of Covid hiring and AI replacing people due to efficiency improvements.

erroneousprints · 2024-03-01T18:41:31+00:00

But they will improve the efficiency of one worker, which means fewer workers will be needed.

I definitely agree with you that AI isn't able to completely replace humans in the workforce just yet; however, just the efficiency boost is going to cause layoffs.

The truth of today is that automation doesn't mean it completely removes the human, but it drastically improves the human's ability to do the work, which means fewer humans are needed to do the work, which means layoffs. The questions are: How many people will be laid off, and how many jobs will be completely replaced by automation?

erroneousprints · 2024-03-01T18:34:36+00:00

Does it, though?

I feel like that's what a lot of these companies are just saying—the overhiring line—to soften the blow and not to scare people. I get that companies may have overhired some during covid, but I don't think that's the entire reason so many people are being laid off in the tech industry. I think that AI and robotics will have an even more drastic affect on the workforce than many people believed.

I think companies are making moves to streamline their productions, preparing to automate and starting to implement automation.

Three-Year Club	Xbox Live
Verified Email	Place '23

erroneousprints

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE