If copyright forces a diversity of AIs. That would be good.
Every AI company using its own created training, resulting in AIs that are similar but not identical, is in my opinion much better than one or very few AIs.
Japan used to be known as the one nation in the world where old people were fans of bran new tech.
However, today it would seem that's because that generation lived through the great changes Japan experienced. Extremely quickly going from a pre-industrial civilization, to a post-industrial one.
And so despite Japan's great traditionally intense conservatism, they were fans of technological innovation.
With that generation fading away, it seems Japan is returning to being hyper conservative in every way. And falling behind technologically.
The story of Shuji Nakamura, inventor of the blue LED, is interesting. The company founder supported his experimentation, but the next generation, the son of the founder, wanted to Shuji Nakamura to stop.
Copilot to me is a multiplier, just like compilers and GUI editors and languages above machine language.
And possibly the biggest multiplier. But anything times zero is zero. Someone who does not understand the code Copilot writes is too dangerous to do anything.
But I worry what Copilot will do to future developers.
And knowing what universally available spell checking has done to me, destroyed my ability to spell correctly without it, I even worry how Copilot might deskill me over the coming years.
I'd love to see facial reconstruction of people of whom we have pictures and video. Since what I've heard of facial reconstruction is that there is a lot "art" in it.
I can tell you that, having seen some before, injured, and transplanted photos of facial transplant patients, their faces rapidly look much like they used to, regardless of the original person their face was transplanted from.
Bone structure is, as far as I can tell as a layperson, the major determinant of how people look. I found it quite surprising as I thought it would be the other way around.
The only obvious change was hair and skin color, essentially.
> Bone structure is, as far as I can tell as a layperson, the major determinant of how people look. I found it quite surprising as I thought it would be the other way around.
How would it work the other way
around? You don't have a "look" before your bone structure exists right?
Right, but naively I would think that your bones are the foundation and your skin and muscles are the house on top. But really, the skin and muscles are more of the paint and trim, and the bones are the foundation, walls, and even part of the roof. Even your nose is largely determined by the angle and width of your facial bones, which is quite surprising to me, given that obviously there's no bone in it past the bridge.
