It’s expensive being poor

Freedom of speech

LLMs keep getting better at imitating humans thus for those who don’t know how the technology works, it’ll seem just like it thinks for itself.

He has all those scratchers yet chooses to sit on the sofa. I think he wants to be high up.

Didn’t take long, compared to how much Ukraine had to wait to get permission to use it on Russian territory while defending themselves.

Like that time they made a giant hole in the screen and called it ‘dynamic island’ 😂

It’s the iBump, it’s a haptic invention gently letting you know you have passed to the other half of the screen. They also made it visible to give you a gentle cue as to where the middle is.

Idk, he popularized electric cars, it has to count for something. But yes, net loss.

I mostly remember him from the movie “Convoy”.

RIP Rubber Duck, 10-4.

“quick, follow that car”

It’s unusable without ads, so if you watch a lot of YouTube it’s worth to pay.

What’s actually driving the price increase? Employees or corporate profit?

Not that one. This one’s more likely:

I don’t think cat would enjoy having his ears and upper whiskers covered. And the bolo tie helps keep it in place.

This hat looks shopped 🤨

Rudy Giuliani

What do you mean that the search engines contain minimal amount of site’s data? Obviously it needs to index all contents to make it searchable. If you search for keywords within an article, you can find the article, therefore all of it needs to be indexed.

Indexing is nothing more than “presenting data to the algorithm” so it’d be against the law to index a site under your proposed legislation.

Wrong. The infringement is in obtaining the data and presenting it to the AI model during the training process. It makes no difference that the original work is not retained in the model’s weights afterwards.

This is an interesting take, I’d be inclined to agree, but you’re still facing the problem of how to distinguish training AI from indexing for search purposes. I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways.

I’d be careful with the “always” part. There was a famous case involving Katy Perry where a single chord was sued over as copyright infringement. The case was thrown out on appeal, but I do not doubt that some pretty wild cases have been upheld as copyright violations (see “patent troll”).

Are you really trying to argue against a point by providing evidence supporting it?

What do you think “ingesting” means if not learning?

Bear in mind that training AI does not involve copying content into its database, so copyright is not an issue. AI is simply predicting the next token /word based on statistics.

You can train AI in a book and it will give you information from the book - information is not copyrightable. You can read a book a talk about its contents on TV - not illegal if you’re a human, should it be illegal if you’re a machine?

There may be moral issues on training on someone’s hard gathered knowledge, but there is no legislature against it. Reading books and using that knowledge to provide information is legal. If you try to outlaw Automating this process by computers, there will be side effects such as search engines will no longer be able to index data.

My point was, the same applies to petrol car. They all have infotainment and need spare parts.

Why wouldn’t they? You plug it in and keep driving. It’s not any different from petrol cars.