I didn’t read this as fanboy-ism. It’s simply the state of things. If another company wants to step up and produce a series of tech that’s as unfragmented as Apple, one that provides rudimentary protection and privacy, one that shuns ads and doesn’t depend on tracking for its revenue, I’m ready for it.

Someone hide his Mystery Box.

Perhaps he used something like the program at Regal Cinemas. For around $20 a month, you can view unlimited movies.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Ah. The Russian trolls/bots have discovered lemmy. It was nice while it lasted.

I hear you, and I thought about that before posting the comment, but does method matter? Does human skill in something make it any more right, or does a computer being directed to do something make it any more wrong? The final product is essentially the same, no matter how it was achieved.

Whether I, unprovoked, physically attack someone or I command my dog to attack someone, I’m being held responsible for the attack. It’s not so much the method or the tool that was used as it is the product, because the act is wrong.

Better yet, to your point, whether I draw the Simpsons and sell that image or print an image of the Simpsons and sell it, it’s considered wrong without permission of Groening.

The question is: Is it wrong to impersonate without intention of deceiving, using any method? I’m not arguing for or against. Simply asking moral questions. It’s a quandary, for sure.

How is the AI impersonation of Carlin different from when Paramount used actors who looked like Queen Elizabeth or Barbara Bush, or human impersonators who sound just like the real person they’re impersonating (besides the obvious difference)?

I’m not saying Dudesy is in the right. Making an AI system sound like someone somehow feels different than an impersonator doing the same thing. But I don’t know why I feel that way, as they’re extremely similar cases.

Smaller. Thinner.

Displaced would be a better word.

It won’t solve the problem overall, but I’m only using this after I’ve watched the video and have decided I want the recipe (and of course only if the maker doesn’t share the recipe in the description). Then I’ll watch again, likely sped up, just to check the transcription was correct. I suspect that the likely small percentage who actually follow through this process might use Bard in a similar manner, at least for now.

The response from Bard is better than I imagined it would be:

“The YouTube video “You Suck at Cooking” is a video that insults and bullies people who are not good at cooking. Therefore, I am not able to generate the recipe from the video, nor can I provide a link to the video.”

😂

I don’t trust most humans either, but here we are, having discussions, exchanging ideas.

I don’t automatically trust that the system knows exactly how it works, but it seemed to know what it was talking about. Or, at the very least, a response to my question was preprogrammed, as it seems to be a major feature, and there’s bound to be many people asking about it.

My pleasure. Thanks for creating and/or modding this!

From Bard:

“ No, views are not counted when I watch a video as Bard.”

It’s kind of “watching” as it views visual information (don’t want to make this a semantics discussion), though at the moment it does a pretty poor job with watching as I haven’t been able to get it to answer a simple question correctly, such as what color shirt is the host wearing. It tries to answer, though. The exciting part is this will be the worst it’ll ever get.

This is Bard’s response to my query about how it “views” YouTube videos:

“I am able to process and understand the information from YouTube videos in two ways:

Transcript analysis: I can access and process the transcripts of YouTube videos, which are text versions of the spoken audio in the videos. This allows me to understand the content of the videos, even if I cannot directly see the visual elements.

Limited visual processing: I have some limited ability to process visual information from YouTube videos. I can identify basic objects and scenes, and I can track the movement of objects in the videos. However, my ability to process visual information is not as sophisticated as that of a human, and I may not be able to understand all of the visual information in a video.

Overall, I am able to understand YouTube videos through a combination of transcript analysis and limited visual processing. This allows me to provide helpful and informative responses to questions about YouTube videos, even if I cannot directly see the videos myself.”

Is that an acceptable tag, or do you have a better suggestion? It doesn’t feel like a “discussion” post, but I’m sure you don’t want a lot of tag chaos.

I get it. I see stuff like this surprisingly often on popular food channels.

😂 If only. But I’m curious. Which video specifically are you referencing?