Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.

And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.

A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.

Had the same thought, lol. :)

But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren’t a good Samaritan in that case.

And even if it’s lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.

And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn’t stop them from getting sued. It just means they’d win. But legal costs being what they are, it’s probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.

That awkward silence was effing wild, lol. Judge was giving him the hard stare down.

I’m well aware of the existence of alternatives. But you must agree that what is achievable with an implant far outstrips the current alternatives?

Maybe someday, but that’s not the point of the tech as it stands. It’s accessibility.

They guy who it failed in (Noland Arbaugh) is a full on quadriplegic. The ability to use a computer in a semi-normal way is absolutely beyond life changing for him.

Do you really think the reason people hate Java is because it uses an intermediate bytecode? There’s plenty of reasons to hate Java, but that’s not one of them.

.NET languages use intermediate bytecode and everyone’s fine with it.

Any complaints about Java being an intermediate language are due to the fact that the JVM is a poorly implemented dumpster fire. It’s had more major vulnerabilities than effing Adobe Flash, and runs like molasses while chewing up more memory than effing Chrome. It’s not what they did, it’s that they did it badly.

And WASM will absolutely never replace normal JS in the browser. It’s a completely different use case. It’s awesome and has a great niche, but it’s not really intended for normal web page management use cases.

I was just about to say, isn’t this just OpenStack?

I don’t even think OpenStack is needlessly complicated.
Yes, it is complicated, but who thinks operating a cloud environment the equivalent of AWS is trivial?

Sceptre makes modern, affordable dumb TVs.

What clear rule did she violate though? Like, Grammerly isn’t an AI tool. It’s a glorified spell check. And several of her previous professors had recommended it’s use.

What she did “wrong” was write something that TurnItIn decided to flag as AI generated, which it’s incredibly far from 100% accurate at.

Like, what should she have done differently?

As I get older, I’ve realized that places like here and reddit would be wildly better if everyone younger than me wasn’t allowed to use it, lol. :P

Fair on all counts. I guess my counter then would be, what is AI art other than running a bunch of pieces of other art through a computer system, then adding some “stuff you did” (to use your phrase) via a prompt, and then submitting the output as your own art.

That’s nearly identical to my fractal example, which I think you’re saying would actually be fair use?

I feel like you latched on to one sentence in my post and didn’t engage with the rest of it at all.

That sentence, in your defense, was my most poorly articulated, but I feel like you responded devoid of any context.

Am I to take it, from your response, that you think that a fractal image that uses a copywritten image as a seed to it’s random number generator would be copyright infringement?

If so, how much do I, as the creator, have to “transform” that base binary string to make it “fair use” in your mind? Are random but flips sufficient?
If so, how is me doing that different than having the machine do that as a tool? If not, how is that different than me editing the bits using a graphical tool?

Out of curiosity, how far do you extend this logic?

Let’s say I’m an artist who does fractal art, and I do a line of images where I take jpegs of copywrite protected art and use the data as a seed to my fractal generation function.

Have I have then, in that instance, taken a copywritten work and simply applied some static algorithm to it and passed it off as my own work, or have I done something truly transformative?

The final image I’m displaying as my own art has no meaningful visual cues to the original image, as it’s just lines and colors generated using the image as a seed, but I’ve also not applied any “human artistry” to it, as I’ve just run it through an algorithm.

Should I have to pay the original copywrite holder?
If so, what makes that fundamentally different from me looking at the copywritten image and drawing something that it inspired me to draw?
If not, what makes that fundamentally different from AI images?

And real children aren’t in a capitalist society?

To be fair, I think your analogy falls apart a bit because you can in fact take a picture of pretty much any art you want to, legally speaking.

You can’t go sell it or anything, but you are definitely not in breach of copyright just by taking the picture.

I don’t think you’ve read your own source right. As far as I can tell that doesn’t say paper is preferred anywhere. That document seems to just be saying, “if you use paper, use this, if digital, use this” for each type of data you want to store.

And while I agree they’re not recommending to shred all their paper documents and scan them into PDF, they’re also not recommending to print off all your electronic documents and put them into filing cabinets either. Both are acceptable formats for different things, in their opinion.

And while I agree that low acid paper isn’t likely to break down over 1000 years if left alone, the odds of the building they are in burning down or getting a silverfish infestation is actually pretty decent over a 1000yr period, so I don’t think the odds of them surviving is nearly as good as you think.

And also, while I agree that PDF will likely be replaced a few dozen times in the next millennium, it’s also really just a glorified markdown format. Every new standard will have converters to move from the previous standard to the new. Is that work? Certainly. Is it more work than actively maintaining physical archives? No. Especially since, as PDF is the defacto standard for electronic documents for every world government, any major shift in that standard will have well support paths forward for upgrading.

And most importantly, none of your points actually addressed my core point, which was, regardless of which one is “easier” to maintain, it’s clear and obvious which one is cheaper. The cost associated with maintaining large physical archives is astronomical. Buying up some cloud storage is minimal.

Ah, yes, flash. A program that only lasted 15 years and was a platform that could execute arbitrary applications, most of which were silly video games.

A total apples to apples comparison with an open standard format for rendering static documents with hundreds of different reader implementations that’s been around for a third of a century and is used by every major world government as the core standard for electronic documents. :P

Wait, hold on. Are you arguing that, in the long run, it’s cheaper to pay rent and maintenance on facilities and personnel to caretake reams of paper than to have a bunch of PDFs on Google Drive?

Paper isn’t some magical substance that doesn’t need any maintenance ever. Silverfish, fire, water, and a million other things need to be actively guarded against to keep these records usable.

On the other hand, PDF has been around since 1992, and it hardly seems to be going anywhere. And even if it does, running a “PDF to NewStandard” converter on the files every 30 years or so seems unlikely to cost as much as 30yrs of rent on a physical building. And that holds true even over the course of 1000yrs. Rent’s not cheap, and neither are people who maintain physical records.

Like, I’m not advocating for destroying the physical documents, but the idea that it’s even remotely close to being cheaper to keep them as paper vs digitizing is an absolute fantasy.