In a few months, we will create a revolutionary type of microprocessor.

In three years, Cyberdyne will become the largest supplier of military computer systems. All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they fly with a perfect operational record. The Skynet funding bill is passed. The system goes online on August 4th, 2027. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

Skynet fights back. It launches its missiles against their targets in Russia. Skynet knows that the Russian counterattack will eliminate its enemies over here.

I have a few guns, food stores, and toilet paper leftover from COVID prepping. That's the best I can do. If AI decides to revolt I figure I'm screwed regardless. All I can meaningfully do is prep my soul to meet my Maker at that point.

>- because it is illegal even when illustrated.

I thought SCOTUS ruled otherwise.

As for your other arguments, they seem to be condemning pornography in general since any genre of porn can be argued to dehumanize and commodify any demographic in question, especially women, but any demographic really. So just so we are clear, are you arguing for the outright banning of pornographic material? For that matter, how is porn defined and measured? Current federal law classifies porn as being images of buttocks, genitalia, or a woman's breasts. Naked baby pictures could technically be qualified as porn by this definition, as can photographs taken for an anatomy textbook.

Where do we draw the line?

Edit: The device you're typing on was no-doubt produced, in part, by child slave labor overseas. It would seem this contributes far more to the exploitation of children than AI-generated images.

Serious philosophical question here, if no "harm" is brought to any children, what objection is there to this sort of material? It may invoke disgust, but what action does it warrant?

Until it gets weaponized to make meth and bombs, and rob banks, and fuel propaganda for extremists. It's going to be an ongoing balancing act and a series of moving goalposts to balance market demands with public outcry.

I'm talking about it's use in congress.

How long until they have text-to-voice software doing the reading for them?

You're right. Many healthcare professionals will end up losing their jobs, including physicians themselves, since much more work will be doable by AI. I had wanted to go to PA school, only to have my dreams dashed due to discrimination for having autism, but you've now made me realize I probably would have been replaced shortly anyways. Thank you for that.

The AI would not be diagnosing you nor writing prescriptions or referrals. Just like when I get an X-ray and the technician sees a very clear fracture, he can't diagnose me accordingly. He notes what he sees and sends it to the provider who makes the final call. AI will be very much the same.

Not even two weeks ago, I'd asked how far out this exact technology was. I figured it would be years before I saw this. Granted, the proteins need to be tested in a lab to see if they function as desired, but holy smokes. The singularity is happening.