Sidekik

@rrhoover Haha, that's a great idea! Seems like Kanye is the man.

@rrhoover Deffo Kanye!

@rrhoover Also glad Bieber is 0%

@joelburke2014 Well said. When the Internet gave us access to all the world's general information, then Digital Humans will do the same on a personal level.

@lyondhur Thanks! IP & legal wise we are doing the same thing as Google, OpenAI, etc - scraping public websites for public data and training neural networks on them. Obviously, this can be done with public figures only so you won't find an AI of yourself in someone's app (at least not in ours). Eventually, you will be able to create an AI of yourself if you choose to do so as you hold your own personal data.

@johannestk I understand how it's done. My question was more like, for example, assuming that the Dalai Lama or Elon Musk aren't exactly happy with what they see. Then? Cheers for the prompt.

@lyondhur Nothing new under the sun from that perspective because IP wise it is legal. You can check out DeepDrumpf for example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jan... In the longer-term, we believe the people will want & create the AI's themselves meaning they will have the control over them.

@johannestk hmmm.. I’m not sure that example reflects my questions I’m afraid mate because DeepDrumpf was a piece of satire. Hence the name change and collections of publicly available data to fill it. Let me put it like this: what if you/someone created an AI’ed version of myself, using my very name and imagery without my express consent? I could run you through several scenarios where you could get a lot more than a slap on the wrist for that. Regardless of what you may believe people will do in the future (I also believe people will indeed created digi-selves as well), that would be beyond the point here. I’m talking about using the name and imagery of someone who’s alive and passive of questioning it without their permission. It’s sort of a retro rival question in a way, since I work in an industry where imagery usage and disclosure is an implicit must. I was just wondering whether this was considering in your foundation since, as far as I see it, it is a risk and liability to you. I believe I may have already gotten an answer for it anyway. Cheers for engaging. All the best.

@lyondhur Those are valid points brought out by you and sure there are risks with it because it is undiscovered area yet. But at the end of the day, it comes down to online impersonation law by which what we do is legal - http://illinoisjltp.com/timelyte... TLDR; "Online social networking has reshaped human interaction in a way that reduces the barriers that would traditionally keep strangers apart.[4] Identification requirements are minimal and there is no proper mechanism of verifying the truthfulness of the information one presents in creating an online profile or e-mail account. However, creating a fake online profile is not a criminal act per se. The component that turns the lawful act into an unlawful act of online impersonation is the imposter’s malicious intent to “defraud,” obtain a “benefit,” or “injure”."

@alsargent Thank you for the thoughts. "Diminishes importance of spending time with people before they pass." - We believe it is the other way around. A simple thought experiment. Can you today speak with the Dalai Lama, Elon Musk, your great grandfather? 99.99999% of the population can not. So it actually brings people closer together because people can now have personal access to them. It isn't about cheating death or replacing real humans but having the ability to connect with people who we are unable to do so because they are unreachable or they are of no more.

@kucukkanat Well it's a fascinating mind (I'm sure some psychologists will have a field day analyzing him)

@quentin_marie_laine Ok. I am getting serious for one second, he is seriously still not a great mind. One second is over. *laughs*

@quentin_marie_laine and, I am not here to discuss politics. You can go to reddit. There is plenty of room there for you

@kucukkanat ok let's start over (sry for my survival english level), I do completely agree with you, I'm not here to discuss politics, the very subject of this project is "mind". And I have here a chance to catch a glimpse of a mind I don't understand and completely disagree with — A mind that is so powerful it's now running the most influential country in the world. I mean people like Alexander the Great or Gengis Khan would have killed nations to have a short overview of their ennemies mindsets… (And I'm speaking for me here) I don't know, I think I prefer to take time to understand my greatest fear freely, than the best role model I already agree with… Sorry if I was sounding harsh, it's quite hard for me to express myself in english, I just wanted to highlight the fact, that Donald Trump is certainly not a great person, but by definition (of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above average.) indeed a great mind, worth knowing more about…