• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Do you agree that Technology is going too far?

Judge said:
Though if the AI did in fact reason such considerations in formulating an answer, quite frankly that would impress the hell out of me. That it operated more like a human, and less like Mr. Spock.
Click to expand...
It favored articles from that camp, and totally missed where the term "playscale" arose from. That is, "sixthscale" has always been about accuracy where "playscale" was originally about accuracy, if specific to a single genre (miniature housing), and expanded to include playthings.
 
Crossbreed said:
It favored articles from that camp, and totally missed where the term "playscale" arose from. That is, "sixthscale" has always been about accuracy where "playscale" was originally about accuracy, if specific to a single genre (miniature housing), and expanded to include playthings.
Click to expand...

You're still focused on accuracy of scale. I'm speculating on the more practical purposes of both scale models and toys. That the AI may prioritize such context to keep the two terms mutually exclusive.

I see a very practical reason for keeping the two separated from one another, and avoiding any explanation that might blur such differences. Though whether the AI actually worked the problem out in such a manner, we may never know. At least not in the present.

While you may scoff at such "bias", I embrace it.

Though if I'm right, it really would seem to imply AI "thinking" rather than merely parsing data. o_O
 
Last edited:
To be clear, I do not consider Barbie & GI Joe's accessories to be 1:6 scale, but the figures, themselves, are a good approximation.
 
There's AI ads on youtube now advertising batons even if it's illegal to own in certain countries.

There was also an AI ad for a fake robot puppy recently.

A favourite youtuber of mine recently had his voice stolen. Someone trained an AI on his voice and then used his voice to narrate a video he was not in.

The state of AI content is crazy.
 
I see dishonesty in AI applications a lot now on YouTube. Particularly issues involving land mammals with parasites and the humans trying to help them. A common and very real theme with sea-going mammals like turtles and whales encrusted with parasitical barnacles.

However land-based mammals with barnacles? Really? Hard to fathom, and made worse when the visuals are all artificially created. Where even humans depicted in aiding such animals are not real.

Which as a story *might* be true in whole or in part, but I don't see the point of creating all the visual where a trained eye can see that they're almost entirely fake.

But then there's that one common denominator and motivation always in play on YouTube.

- Clickbait. That once they got you to just click on the presentation, they likely don't care what anyone thinks when it comes to credibility.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom