swansont

! Moderator Note I don’t think that anything “discovered” while using a psychedelic drug counts as evidence; in any event you’d need independent observation. By some instrument, like a movie camera. Additionally, describing or advocating the use of an illegal substance is against rule 2.3

You haven’t demonstrated any gap. It’s not at all clear to me what problem this is meant to solve.

Then why is this called physics-logics? Seems to me it should be something that does physics.

! Moderator Note You should read them. Rule 2.7 starts with “Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it”

Black holes are not “absolutely nothing” And yes, a BH is more dense than a neutron star. You would need evidence that this is the case. A model, and an observation that fit that model.

It’’s called a black hole because no particles that have fallen inside can escape, not even light. So, like a hole, and also black. You would have to explain how a neutron structure could exist under such a large attraction. Black holes have little to with dark matter. Dark matter would fall into it, but the black hole behavior does not rely on dark matter; the theory that predicts black holes predates knowledge of dark matter

You mentioned Oscar winners. There’s a lot of Hollywood in that. It doesn’t, and I didn’t claim it did. You were drawing a distinction, and I’m pointing out that these are not black and white. No, but some things are introduced as being the topic of discussion, while others aren’t.

The bottom line for physics is being able to predict or explain behavior of some phenomenon, usually with a calculation, as applied to some experiment. What observed phenomenon does this apply to?

But there are a lot of movies made every year and only a few win awards, and only a few of the actors, so that’s not representative. Do you really think that woman #2 or bar patron has a real investment in the movie? Or is it more like the Hollywood adage “work is work”? And it’s not like Hollywood actresses aren’t mistreated. (See e.g. Judy Garland) or that Hollywood doesn’t exploit people Morals and ethics aren’t the same thing, though.

It occurs to me that the way they do this now is with animated movies and voice actors. But animation often involves some kind of element not easily replicated with live action, and there’s a suspension of disbelief- animated action can get away with things that look weird in a live action scenario, and I don’t think AI would look real enough (which is uncanny valley-related)

It’s possible the letter was supposed to be discovered and distributed after the attempt (the authorities might not have disclosed all the details) but it assumes failure, that the intent wasn’t clear, and that he couldn’t clarify himself. Almost like this was intended to be a suicide-by-cop.

But this -your thread- is allegedly about ethics, not good vs bad, or tasteful vs tasteless What is unethical about porn, in your view? Are you suggesting it’s unethical to listen to “bad” music?

It seems odd that this was written months ago but put in the past tense, but then, there’s nothing normal going on here https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-charged-apparent-trump-plot-wrote-assassination-attempt-court-rcna172199

The speculation in this thread is about a TOE. Not about any other topics. There will always be an uncertainty in any measurement. But it’s going to be quite small relative to the size of the earth.

Fred Astaire’s widow licensed his likeness for a vacuum cleaner commercial but they were paid, so that’s not the same thing as using AI as a replacement; AI purveyors are notorious for scraping content without regard for copyright (or other rights) and have admitted they can’t be profitable if they have to pay for content. LLMs degrade pretty quickly if they are cannibalizing generated content.

Perhaps you could give an example of this idea resulting in a practical physics solution.

That’s a problem for your credibility, IMO. Wrong statements don’t actually defend a premise

If a big studio gambles on this and the movie tanks, they’re in trouble if nobody is willing to work for them. The movie industry has some pretty strong unions.

There is not, in any dwelling where I have knowledge of the smoke alarm operation.

Not futile for the actors, film crew and possibly writers who would currently be displaced from work. I think it will happen via an independent movie maker. The big studios will only go that way after it has seen success

There is nothing new here, except for novel spelling of things (e.g. “exceleration”) and things like graduation rates are not part of physics. Up until you mentioned “intensity” I don’t think there was any physics at all.

! Moderator Note Moved to a more appropriate section

Any studio that does this (where CGI is not required) had better quickly transition to doing it 100%, because I think they will be boycotted by the SAG, and possibly other unions. I don’t see them passively watch as AI eats into their livelihoods

! Moderator Note Teasers are not the approach we prefer. As we say in rule 2.8, which prohibits soapboxing, “This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall.” Further, speculations proposals require a way to test them. Physics already uses logic. You haven’t shown anything novel yet, and your images are not as illustrative as you might think they are.

What’s your opinion?