Luuvies Go on Strike After Seeing the Future

Well, I called it several months ago: Artificial Intelligence (AI) threatens a whole host of middle class occupations. 

Actors are just the first to notice that things like scriptwriting and actual acting can with some judicious tweaking of AI algorithms, be completely replaced.

Greedy corporations like Disney will not hesitate to use this new technology to generate revenue. It may well be there will be an eventual settlement, something along the lines of not using AI generated likenesses of living actors. But that doesn't preclude new original films having AI-generated scripts and AI-generated characters.

Imagine full photo-real films generated by AI from a script generated by AI. All the humans have to do is provide the AI with the idea, the premise for the film and the AI does all the rest.

Actually scratch that: The AI can look at the metrics for a series of films, the number of views, audience figures, box office returns etc. And then it can generate a script that will be most likely to generate the highest box office revenue.

All the higher-up executives need to do is install the system and then the film industry will be able to spew out film after film. Given a fast enough computer system the films could be generated within weeks or days. No more lead times measured in months or years.

The whole acting industry: Agents, executives, deal-makers, producers, directors, actors, screenwriters, all the back-room people like key grips (whatever they are) will ALL be out of a job. 

But it doesn't stop there. Stockbrokers, traders, lawyers, middle managers, artists, a whole raft of middle-class jobs will be redundant once AI takes over.

The only jobs likely to escape the takeover of AI are the intuitive jobs, the jobs that require that intangible essence of humanity. The creators, the imagineers, the forward-thinkers, those that are first in the field, or create a whole new field. 

Although how long it is before AI can out-think the creators or simulate human imagination is anyone's guess.

Whether it can imagine the infinite possibilities of the universe without proof at all is something that we can't really predict. And at that point, does AI find religion?

Media and Police Trying to Excuse BBC Celeb Noncery.

It seems the only people interested in seeing the BBC celeb caught up in the latest scandal banged to rights are the parents of the young lad in question and the public. 

The BBC, the Media and even the Police are going to great lengths to make this story go away.

The BBC failed to investigate and then did their usual incompetent excusing when the Sun got a hold of the story. 

The lad in question (I hate to call him a victim as he was paid quite well) doesn't want the fuss.

Even the Police say it's not prosecutable. Excuse me? This celebrity paid for sexually explicit pictures of a person under 18 and effectively groomed them to provide the pictures. If that was any ordinary person we'd be banged to rights, up before the beak on severe noncery charges, convicted and sent down for a few years and be on the sex offenders register for the rest of our lives.

But of course money and connections can do wonders.

The fact is, while that lad was under 18, it was illegal for anyone to solicit explicit pictures, or to groom the "child" to provide the pictures by paying money. Merely owning sexually explicit pictures of a person under the age of 18 is illegal. There is no defence.

I thought that was a straight no defence statutory offence? Did he pay a 17-year old for explicit pictures? Were those pictures in his possession? Yes? Case proven, send the nonce down.

Again, if it was any ordinary person committing the offence of grooming a minor, then we'd be banged to rights. But if you've got a bit of money you can get a super-injunction to avoid being named and you have the contacts to make even the Police scared of prosecuting you.

It stinks to high heaven.

I'm sure the celeb in question is getting the response down pat. Have the family gathered round in front of the house for the press, say they are very sorry and it won't happen again, lapse of judgement, yadda yadda, very sorry, let the public down. 

A few years in the wilderness living off that fat BBC nest egg and they'll be back on our screens again.

Just as an example of what happens to ordinary people, here's the case of the son of a friend.

He was a 21-year old that met a girl in a casino (note the adult-only over 18 venue requires adult ID and registration to get access, so you'd think it was safe to assume she was over the age of consent). 

She said she was 18 and looked 18. There was plenty of evidence she was using fake ID to get into adult venues and his story was backed up by friends of his that she presented herself as an 18-year old. They had a few dates, and did the things that adults do. Only when he didn't want to continue with the relationship did she then reveal that she was 15 and got her parents to call the Police. He was prosecuted, send down for a number of years and now is on the SOR.

Now to me, that would be an excusable scenario: the girl presents as something she isn't and only reveals her deception when he wants to break up. 

The BBC celeb I assume knew the kid was 17 and was paying him for pictures. In my mind it should fall foul of the child pornography laws as well as recent grooming legislation. 

But of course one law for thee, another law for those that can afford it.

One thing did occur to me: What's the ethnicity of the celebrity in question? 

Given the Police are reluctant to prosecute child rape cases perpetrated by certain ethic groups, is the reluctance of Police to prosecute in this case based on the ethnicity of the perpetrator? 

Is There Something About Working on TV That Makes You Depraved?

Yet another presenter (don't know yet whether TV or Radio) has been caught doing very naughty sexual things.

This time asking a teenager under 18 for sexually explicit pictures in return for money.

It does make you wonder what is in the nature of a presenter that makes them do such things. Phillip Schofield and his fling with a young guy, the Infamous Jimmy Saville, are amongst a litany of salacious celebrities that seem to have a predilection for the perverse.

Not that there's anything wrong with being perverse you understand, I have attended fetish clubs before and there were celebrities there at the time. My lips are sealed, because it's not my business to reveal activities between consenting adults, nor is it my remit to unmask (literally) someone with similar interests.

But there's a line between what is legal and what is plainly illegal. And especially illegal due to being under age.

I'm all for consenting adults doing the things they do in private as long as both parties are consenting, but preying on young underage people is really despicable.

As an aside, if there is any famous females out there fancy attending a fetish club completely clad in Latex, do let me know, I'll see what I can arrange....