US government gutted manufacturing? Last I checked companies chasing endless profit did that. Then when the government tried to stop them they used their money and power to elect a government that let them outsource US jobs to China. They’ve been rolling in money ever since.

This is exactly what Disney is trying to do by throwing an ex employee under the bus.

If people’s lives depend on your systems, and your systems can be undermined by a single person and not caught for years, then you’re playing with people’s lives.

Secondly, even if this was the case, how could they possibly justify trying to get out of being accountable by saying she signed away her rights by using a free month of Disney+?

This is just Disney moving on to their next bullshit excuse to not pay after the first one didn’t work.

This is in comparison to private corporations who have a profit incentive to monetize your data in every disgusting abusive way possible. Companies with a fiduciary duty to exploit every possible potential for profit or they can be sued by shareholders? Companies that aren’t publicly auditable so you’ll never know who they’re sharing your data with? Like the recent trend of cars selling your location data to your insurance company who then uses it to hike your rates?

You’re comparing a government who has to be bribed or break a law in order to share your data at all with corporations who have a duty to sell it to the highest bidder. And in this comparison your conclusion is it’s the government that you can’t trust?

Sorry, I have to say I’m completely baffled by your statements right now.

That’s true, but the government is auditable by citizens though. We can legislate them to not keep logs and most importantly we can see if they’re sharing data with advertisers.

This is the right way to protect privacy. Auditable government departments have your data anyways. They don’t provide the data to companies, but they answer questions like “old enough to drink?” With yes no answers.

If your phone is in a Faraday bag how would you get phone calls?

If you already know the answer you can tell the AI the answer as part of the question and it’ll give you the right answer.

That’s what you sound like.

AI people are as annoying as the Musk crowd.

I think it’s desktop only, but I rarely use the mobile brave app.

Yeah 0- 49% is an F 50-59 is a D 60-69 is a C 70-79 is a B 80-89 is an A 90-100 is an A+

It means that 10-20% of exams and assignments can be used to really challenge students without unfairly affecting grades of those who meet curriculum expectations.

If you miss key information the summary is useless.

If the structure of the code is bad then using that boilerplate will harm your ability to maintain the code FOREVER.

There are use cases for it, but it has to be used by someone who understands the task and knows the outcome they’re looking for. It can’t replace any measure of skill just yet, but it behaves as if it can which is hazardous.

47% is a fail. 81% is an A-… Sure the AI can fail faster than a human can succeed, but I can fail to run a marathon faster than an athlete can succeed.

I guess by the standards we use to judge AI I’m a marathon runner!

Not even that complex anymore, just download brave and “open private window with tor”. Then go to the website and download the data.

Downloading a “tor browser” always sound more “hacker” than it is these days.

I completely agree. This is going to free kids from someone taking a picture of them doing something relatively harmless and extorting them. “That was AI, I wasn’t even at that party 🤷”

I can’t wait for childhood and teenage life to being a bit more free and a bit less constantly recorded.

Nobody is giving away i9 hardware at i3 prices otherwise everyone would buy the cheapest model and part it out for massive profit.

Look at some n95 NUCs on Amazon, or any mini pc really. Often less than 200$ for a full windows PC that can stream anything you throw at it.

Space x doesn’t work thanks to Musk. It works DESPITE him, and it requires careful management.

The best part about this is that UMG WMG and SMG all simultaneously went “you can’t take an artist’s life work and exploit it, that’s unfair, it’s OUR job to take an artist’s life’s work and exploit it”

AI isn’t “like a person” it doesn’t “learn like a person” it doesn’t “think like a person” it’s nothing like a person. It’s a a machine that creates copies of whatever you put into it. It’s a machine that a real person, or group of people, own. These people TAKE all the stuff everyone else created and put it into their copy machine.

In fact it’s really easy to show that it’s a copy machine because the less stuff you put into it the more of a direct copy you get out of it. If you put only one song, or one artist, into it then virtually everything it creates would be direct copyright infringements. If you put all of the worlds music into it the copying becomes more blurred, more complex, more interesting, and therefore more valuable.

Sure AI is a great innovation, but if someone wants to put my work into a copying machine they’re going to have to acquire it from me legally.

No one is against AI, we’re just against the people who own the AI machines stealing our work without paying for it.

I think you’re mixing copyright which protects works and patients which protect inventions as well as the timelines.

Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don’t, they’re at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law

She didn’t do anything that would be considered a “legitimate reason”, and although applied uniformly, it’s difficult to prove that an AI model doesn’t discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.

I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to “lower class” criminal behavior like shoplifting.