North Americans, again, deciding in a British film what is a star and what not while not knowing the actors here, because of course if they do not know the actors they are not famous.

I’d prefer watching a Fez spinoff

You could argue that at the time of the filming and initial planned release, Armie Hammer was also a star whose career was heating up and could draw an audience even more so than Depp. And then, things happened that I’ll decline to feast on.

Was it women with a high voice or just anyone with a high voice? The studies I found on Google just now seem to indicate its the latter.

When your ‘solutions’ to race issues line up with wishes of neo-nazis on a practical level, maybe it’s time to re-evaluate?

Willem Dafoe is defintely more of a character actor than a star

A lot of it is not wanting to live near “those” people, they’re just looking for an excuse that won’t lose them Twitter followers

Agreed.  I mean Gadot is one of the biggest stars on the planet.

As a middle-aged Scotsman who grew up watching their comedy, I am unexpectedly excited at the thought of French & Saunders being reunited on the big screen. Low wattage? Pish!

I’m an aging punk/slacker/whatever, who’s never heard 98% of what’s considered ‘hip’ nowadays, but even I think that Billie Eilish totally deserves a Best Original Song nomination for ‘No Time to Die’ - hell, I bought the damn 7 inch when it first came out. Too bad the movie was lacklustre, to put it mildly.

Do you think the woman with the "healthy relationship" in the article will stop at abusing bots or will she keep a real girlfriend locked in her basement, forced to chat and flirt wherever she feels like it?

I feel like i’m taking crazy pills, why are we equating sexual harassment/assualt, the same as people interacting with lines of code? The women being harressed in VR spaces is terrible, but why is that linked to chat bots? I’m so confused.

That is very not obvious, and has been proven wrong again and again, and despite being proven wrong again and again, is always stated whenever there’s some new technology. The same exact thing was said about violent video games. And movies. “This is going to corrupt the children blargh! Isn’t it obvious that if these…

I don’t think you mean “bad faith,” but in any case, it seems like the grays is the only place where there’s some critical thinking being applied. How exactly do you even defend statements like this:

So much to unpack that the revelation that bots are being treated abusively is the LEAST of the issues. In part because “duh”

1) While bots are being treated abusively, can they actually be abused/harmed? If so, that places them on the sentient creature spectrum between animals and humans. If they land towards the pets…

AI’s aren’t sentient. They’re not people. They’re just algorithms that rely on massive piles of data. Flagging a person who ‘absues’ an AI program for bad behavior is as silly as flagging the person running over pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto. It’s not the red flag you think it should be that the next James Alex…

What? So did I commit a crime when I walled my Sims into a room with no doors or food or restroom?

GTA, and The Sims.

This is just a rehashing of the violence in video games begets violence in the real life, which has been roundly debunked. The opposite has been shown in that case in all studies done on the subject and I’m sure this would have similar results. 

I’d be curious how the interviewed experts view the effect of video games like GTA.