I misgendered a woman who was already very irate. This was probably 30 years ago, before trangenderism was as common as it is now (or at least as publicly presented). It did NOT go over well, to say the least. Other customers were smirking and giggling, and even a coworker was having trouble keeping a straight face. In my defense, she was heavyset, had shaved hair and a raspy voice. Luckily I didn’t say any of this to her. I just got my manager and let her yell at me (and him) for 10 minutes. I learned the value of keeping your mouth shut until you’re certain that day.

Why ten seconds? Am I about to ride a rodeo bull?

This plus The Cat Came Back are pretty core memories for me. Used to air these on the pay tv channels at the time I believe.

The key point of the article is that they haven’t actually been asked these questions multiple times, because they exclusively stick to right wing media which exclusively lobs softball questions at them.

I think it has to be EA because Atari as I think of it was just a company that launched the success of home gaming but mismanaged themselves into bankruptcy, putting a pretty big dent in the north American video game industry in the process, but a dent that Nintendo very easily fixed with the NES only a few years later. The subsequent uses of the Atari name and IP by successive owners doesn’t really do anything but make me sad - I can’t really attribute anything that Atari does these days to the company that did all the good (and bad) stuff in the 80s. More like Bernie from Weekend at Bernie’s, being trotted out by companies hoping to capitalize on long-dead goodwill.

EA, on the other hand is the same company that started back in the 80s; they have an unbroken bloodline from the scrappy company making good quality computer games that hit the jackpot with their sports titles to the behemoth they are today with all the shitty practices we all know and hate. They are the company that lived long enough to see themselves become the villain.

That only happens when he’s learning about 'Nam.

Thanks for posting this. The TLDR is that using the checklist no current AI is conscious but that there are no great barriers to one doing so in the future. Also, the article itself does not list the indicators but does link to the the academic paper which does.

An interesting point from the article is that these are indicators of human consciousness, since that’s all we really know for certain. Current AI models could be as conscious as many ‘lower order’ living things because we just don’t know how they experience the world. Given that there are ‘cruelty to animals’ laws on the books all over the world, I wonder how far down the checklist you have to go before ‘cruelty to AI’ becomes a thing.

This comment sums up almost every 80s show I loved as a kid. There has to be at least one cool vehicle, but the more the merrier. Knight Rider, A-Team, Magnum PI, Dukes of Hazzard, Fall Guy, Hardcastle & McCormick, Simon & Simon, BJ & the Bear, Stingray, the list goes on and on.

But the treatment of photographs in the decision fits your description. The photographer sets up the environment that allowed the image to exist but it’s the camera that makes the image. The judge held that was protectable because the image represents the human’s mental conception of the scene. It’s not a ridiculous stretch to consider AI to be merely a camera for the prompt-writer’s mental conception. I am certain this argument has been or will be tried in court. The IP owner industry is far from done litigating this topic.

In this case that being no foster kids

Your location matters. Some US states, for example, have laws that require the company to provide you with a salary range if you ask for one. Some EU locations have similar requirements. Google pay transparency laws in your location to see if the company has to tell you or not. But as others have said, it’s generally best to have the company make the first move.