silverbax

"What should we include when we build our humanoid robot?"

"It should stand up in the most unnerving way possible."

Layoffs are always, always, always a sign of an unhealthy company, regardless of how Wall Steet reacts.

Hiring devs with degrees does not guarantee anything quality about the software they write.

It's only not profitable because the CEO and CFO are taking such massive salaries, $193M and $93M, respectively.

They took $286M and the company lost $90M. They could take $90M less - still taking almost $200M - and Reddit would be profitable. That alone should tell investors that this is a bad investment.

I'm more interested in which filament was used.

It is worse, and Teams is even worse than Edge.

And, Amazon didn't want to give up the 'mapping everyone's home and tracking them' concept.

Maybe so, but there are people who aren't scared of bears and get mauled to death. If he really is that dumb he won't hear the impending doom.

1. Buy Brother, better printers without all this subscription garbage.

2. How long before an 'open source' printer hots the market and terrifies this idiot CEO?

Thanks for your response. I realize I muddied the waters on my question by mentioning exact copies.

My real question is based on the 'everything is a remix' idea. I can create a work 'in the style of Banksy' and sell it. The US copyright and trademark laws state that a work only has to be 10% differentiated from the original in order to be legal to use, so creating a piece of work that 'looks like it could have been created by Banksy, but was not created by Banksy' is legal.

So since most AI does not create exact copies, this is where I find the licensing argument possibly weak. I really haven't seen AI like MidJourney creating exact replicas of works - but admittedly, I am not following every single piece of art created on Midjourney, or Stable Diffusion, or DALL-E, or any of the other platforms, and I'm not an expert in the trademarking laws to the extent I can answer these questions.

I think this is a difficult concept to tackle, but the main argument I see about using existing works as 'training data' is the idea that 'everything is a remix'.

I, as a human, can paint an exact copy of a Picasso work or any other artist. This is not illegal and I have no need of a license to do this. I definitely don't need a license to paint something 'in the style of Picasso', and I can definitely sell it with my own name on it.

But the question is, what about when a computer does the same thing? What is the difference? Speed? Scale? Anyone can view a picture of the Mona Lisa at any time and make their own painting of it. You can't use the image of the Mona Lisa without accreditation and licensing, but what about a recreation of the Mona Lisa?

I'm not really arguing pro-AI here, although it may sound like it. I've just heard the 'licensing' argument many times and I'd really like to hear what the difference between a human copying and a computer copying are, if someone knows more about the law.

So, 95% chance that humans will cause human extinction.

And humans created AI, so even if AI does in the human race, it will still have been humans.

I guess if humans go extinct, it's close to 100% due to humans.