Yesterday, I praised Viola Davis’ Oscar speech for being memorable without being overtly political—for simply talking about her work in a touching and well-written way. Twitter quickly let me know that I missed something. On social media and on conservative news sites, Davis’ speech actually sparked outrage.

Explaining that she believed her mission was to “unearth… the stories of people who dreamed great things but never made those dreams come true, people who fell in love and lost,” Davis said:

This statement became one of the points of discussion of the right Internet after the Oscars ceremony. “Art is beautiful; art enriches; art can connect us to each other,” writes Ben Shapiro. V daily wire. “But the sheer arrogance of declaring that artists are “the only profession that celebrates what it means to live life” is simply amazing. How about doctors? What about stay-at-home mothers who help shape lives rather than pursue their own career interests? How about undertakers? How about if almost everyone in a free market economy gives themselves to others to improve life?

Variations of this sentiment have ricocheted online, with Davis sometimes being misquoted as saying that only “actors” celebrate what it means to live life, or worse, are the only ones who “know” what it means to live life. .

Do people have the right to be offended? Did they say that artists are better than everyone else? If you read her words literally, in the context of her speech, and give her the slightest benefit of doubt, it’s hard to see the backlash against Davis as anything but a symptom of our overblown culture wars.

Everyone “celebrates what it means to live life” in their own way, but for whom can this be the main function of their profession? Artists, definitely. The clergy, perhaps. Doctors Keep life, not to glorify them, and it does not humiliate them if they talk about it. Stay home parents help others, and Davis might even agree that it is more noble, important and necessary than “glorifying” the meaning of life.

Her point was simply that artists have a unique role to play in telling stories about the human experience and that she is glad to be a part of it.

Of course, she could have edited herself to be less controversial, though perhaps less interesting., statements. If she had simply said, “I became an artist—and thank God I did—because we are celebrating what it means to live life,” the complaints might have been more difficult. The word “one” emphasizes the special feature of the artists, but it is also a whistle for anyone who has a strong resentment of Hollywood elitism and condescension. And there has rarely been a better time to express such outrage than now.

On the right, reflective aversion to the entertainment industry has taken on a new dimension under Donald Trump. during Fox and friends after Oscarthe confusion that la la country Wrongly declared “Best Picture” Steve Doucey called “Hollywood got the election wrong, and last night Hollywood got the Oscar wrong.” Guest Tucker Carlson agreed, but added that Moonlight “should have won” because that’s what the moralizing, politically correct establishment wanted. Yes, the Oscars were both a disaster out of touch with reality and a cunningly rigged game.

Donald Trump interpreted the Academy’s failure in his own way: “I think they were so focused on politics that at the end they couldn’t come together,” he said. beardas if the accountant of PricewaterhouseCoopers, who handed Warren Beatty the wrong envelope did so because he cursed too hard at Kimmel, who tweeted the president “are you okay?”

Liberals may moan when Trump attributes a logistical error to his critics. But of course, both sides today see a lot of politics in entertainment: see below. all takes do like Dusi and compare the end of the Oscars to election night.

To many viewers on Sunday, Davis’s speech was remarkable in that she almost went beyond the partisan strife and just spoke passionately about acting. But one word – “only” – was enough to make it a culture war litmus test. Maybe she wanted to argue about the place of art in society, or maybe she just portrayed her profession as she really sees it. In any case, it was a defiant move in an age where artists are increasingly being held to the same standards as candidates for office: they are expected to choose their words not for truth, but for politics.

Artificial intelligence technology seems to be finding applications in all industries, from fast food chains to parcel delivery and automated unmanned vehicles. Now some companies are also including AI guards to keep their business safe. However, I’m not sure if these bots can be reliable. Let’s see how robot safety experiments turn into reality.

CLICK TO GET KURT CYBERGUY’S NEWSLETTER WITH QUICK TIPS, TECH REVIEWS, SAFETY WARNINGS AND SIMPLE TIPS TO MAKE YOU SMARTER

How are these AI guards being used?

These security robots are mainly used in office buildings and perform various tasks. Cobalt Robotics, a company that specializes in “artificial intelligence and robotic automation for routine critical tasks…” is responsible for populating these office buildings.

NEVER MISS A CALL EVEN WHEN THE PHONE IS IN ANOTHER ROOM

Some of these tasks include things like patrolling office buildings for broken fire alarms, suspicious activity, and screening visitors. The main reason many office buildings are starting to use these robots instead of humans is because it saves them a ton of money – roughly $79,000 a year, according to a report from Forrester Research. Although they can last longer and perform multiple tasks, I’m not sure I would trust this machine with any weapons in the event of a malfunction. Let’s look at the pros and cons of using this technology.

MORE: HOW TO KNOW WHO’S SPYING ON YOU

What are the benefits of having AI guards?

One of the big advantages of AI security guards is that they can detect more dangers than a security camera or even a human. They cannot get tired or distracted, and will be safer against intruders than risking the life of a human guard.

Another advantage is the two-way communication system with which some of these robots are being developed. Employees can report the problem directly to the bot, or if they prefer to deal with a human and can’t find one, they can request the presence of a human from the bot and it will alert the appropriate department.

FACEBOOK LISTENING TO YOU?

Cobalt Robotics has added many features to its bots that make human communication much easier. (CyberGuy.com/Cobalt Security)

In particular, the Cobalt Robotics guard is made of fabric and can pass for high-end furniture, so an attacker may not even realize at a glance that a guard is watching him. It could be a clever design that other companies can take note of to better hide the guard.

HOW DRONES ARE CHANGING DELIVERY BY LIFTING THE SKY

What are the cons of having AI guards?

One downside is that human guards can lose their jobs. However, one could argue that humans can always be assigned to do other work, such as fixing AI technology if it’s faulty, or fixing a problem if an employee doesn’t want to go through the robot.

HOW TO COMPARE HOLIDAY HOME RENTAL PRICES

Many fear that as technology advances, robots will replace human security guards. (CyberGuy.com/Cobalt Security)

And the scam that worries me the most is the malfunction of this technology. We’ve seen AI technology fail all the time, whether it’s something like ChatGPT saying the wrong thing or the self-service machine at McDonald’s not working. Also, there haven’t been many details about whether these robots can actually prevent crime. Security guards are there to keep people safe in a designated building, so I’m a little hesitant to fully trust AI bots until companies are sure they’re the safest option and won’t malfunction if necessary.

MORE: US FGLOWS AI WAR PLANE FOR 17 HOURS – DO YOU NEED TO WORRY?

Arming robots with weapons

The San Francisco Police Department has proposed a policy that allows robots to be armed and even lethal force in an extreme situation where the public or the police are in immediate danger. Although their policy was rejected, the police department said they were interested in bringing it back for review.

So the question is: should we trust robots to carry weapons instead of paying a human to do the job? Let us know your thoughts.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

To learn more about my tips, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report newsletter by clicking the Free Newsletter link at the top of my website.

Copyright 2023 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.