charonn0
I wouldn't hang my hat on that statistic until after autonomous cars make up a significant portion of cars on the road.
Next? Hell, that kind of thing is old news already.
The Verge reported that CEO Sundar Pichai defended the layoffs and claimed that workers sometimes reach out to express gratitude for the cuts. “And I just want to clarify that, through these changes, people feel it on the ground and sometimes people write back and say, ‘Thank you for simplifying.’ Sometimes we have a complicated, duplicative structure,” he said, per the Verge.
Chalmers: People send thank you's for lay offs?
Pichai: Yes.
Chalmers: May I see one?
Pichai: No.
This popped up over the weekend on my work PC. It was an emergency and I absolutely needed to get to my desktop ASAP.
Nope. Full screen advertisement for Windows 11 demanding my immediate and undivided attention. Blocking all other functions, commands, and inputs. I must interact with this ad or else I cannot use my computer.
Fuck. That.
I am never installing Windows 11. I am never buying another Microsoft operating system. Specifically because of this sort of heavy-handed dark patterned bullshit. Not to mention the fact that Windows 10 is dog shit.
The idea of checks and balances on the exercise of government powers extends to even the state/federal relationship.
Cybersecurity != Safety Critical
I think we should have a rule that says if a LLM company invokes fair use on the training inputs then the outputs are public domain.
Yeah, the headline makes it sound like they had cameras in the toilets or something.
If OpenAI owns a Copyright on the output of their LLMs, then I side with the NYT.
If the output is public domain--that is you or I could use it commercially without OpenAI's permission--then I side with OpenAI.
Sort of like how a spell checker works. The dictionary is Copyrighted, the spell check software is Copyrighted, but using it on your document doesn't grant the spell check vendor any Copyright over it.
I think this strikes a reasonable balance between creators' IP rights, AI companies' interest in expansion, and the public interest in having these tools at our disposal. So, in my scheme, either creators get a royalty, or the LLM company doesn't get to Copyright the outputs. I could even see different AI companies going down different paths and offering different kinds of service based on that distinction.
I just thought "pirate-friendly" was concise.
tl;dr: The users' comments say that a certain ISP is pirate-friendly. Studios want to use the comments against the ISP (not the users).