mfryd

The big deal here is that independent third party repair shops can now buy the tools needed to repair iPhones.

For a few dollars more, you can replace the wall outlet with one that has a built in USB charger.   That won't stick out as far, leaves the 120 VAC outlets available for use, and is harder for someone to casually steal.

For instance, Leviton (a brand with a good reputation) offers model T5633A (about $25 from Amazon).  It has two 120VAC outlets, a USB-A, and a USB-C.  It's limited to 25W total for the two USB ports, and no more than 15W per port.   The Leviton T5635 (about $34 from Amazon) offers two USB-C ports.  It can put out 15W to each port, or 30W to one port.   


There are many other brands and options available, some at lower cost and higher power outputs.

22july2013 said:

hexclock said:

Of course they can’t reason. It’s not a living mind. It’s the illusion of intelligence. 

And of course those Boston Dynamics robot dogs can't run. It's not a living body. It's the illusion of running. Illusion, shmillusion. If it works, that's all I care about. Maybe you agree with me, you're just quibbling over a word.

The difference between large language models and real intelligence is analogous to the difference between a Hollywood movie where it looks like someone bing shot, and an actual video of someone being shot.  On screen, they both may look the same.  But what's going on behind the scenes is very different.  Furthermore, if you extend the time, in the Hollywood movie you will see the "victim" get up, and wipe off the fake blood.  That's not what happens in a video of an actual shooting.

While the large language models may give the appearance of intelligence, it's not what we normally think of as intelligence.

Suppose I programmed a computer to beg and plead that it not be turned off.  Every time someone got close to the power switch, it would randomly play a prerecorded message begging that it doesn't want to die, that it's afraid of being turned off, that it hurts when it is turned off.   The computer would give the appearance of fear, but there would be no actual fear.   After all, the computer doesn't need to know what any of the recordings are.   You could keep the program the same, and replace the recordings with ones begging to be turned off as the computer is miserable with a pain in all the diodes down its left side.

sconosciuto said:

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The Trump administration tries to claim everything is an emergency or national security related. But they never like to provide any evidence of either claim. 

The Trump administration asserts various "emergencies" as a justification for violating the law and the US Constitution.   It is normal for the population to look the other way at these sorts of things when they like the direction the administration is taking. A big issue i that by looking the other way when you like what's happening, you lose the ability to do anything if you don't like the direction the government is taking.


The only thing that's new is the magnitude of what's going on.  Previous administrations have never violated the law in such an egregious fashion on so many controversial issues.  But then, this is what America wanted.  After all we did elect a convicted felon. 


A good example of previous violations is the US highway system.  The US Constitution envisions a lean and mean federal government.  The Constitution enumerates the few things the Federal government is responsible for, and explicitly reserves everything else to the states.  There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Feds the responsibility or authority to create a national highway system.   At one point the government tried to justify it as being for national defense, but that's no longer applicable.  The US military can deploy via air to anywhere in the world.  Trying to do a domestic deployment by road would only slow things down.  We don't have roads to Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., yet we were able to wage war there.

Now, I am not suggesting that it's a bad idea to have a national highway system.  Personally, I think it's a good thing.  My point is that it is contrary to the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are in favor of it, so we tend to look the other way.  

Someone needs to re-read the Commerce Clause. The Founding Fathers, contrary to the ahistorical assertions of conservatives, envisioned the Constitution as a living document rather than being frozen in amber as if the US would perpetually be the nation of farmers and shopkeepers that it was three centuries ago.

After re-reading the CC, I suggest you familiarize yourself with what it was like to travel by motorized vehicles for long, interstate travel before the advent of the freeway system.

The Roman Empire as history knows it would not have existed without a comprehensive road system, read up on that as well. A comprehensive system of roads connecting the entirety of its interior would indeed be critical to defense of US territory in the event of invasion. That such a crisis is extraordinarily unlikely today*, 70 some years after the inception of the interstate highway system, does not change that simple fact.

*on the other hand... the US spearheaded a push to go to war against a sovereign nation in order to depose the despotic dictator of a sovereign nation that the former alleged was an imminently dangerous peril to international peace,  and obtained UN blessing for it...

Yes, the founders intended the Constitution to be a living document.  That's why we have a process for, and a history of, amendments.   I don't think they intended that we should simply ignore parts of the Constitution that are not popular.  The early United States was like the current European Union.  A collection of independent states/countries, joining together for a few, explicitly enumerate, purposes.  The goal was a small Federal government and strong state's rights.

The tenth amendment explicitly states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states.   This tells us that the Federal Government does not have power over everything, and that something must be reserved to the states.

Yes, the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate interstate commerce.    While roads are helpful to commerce, they are not, in themselves, commerce.   

One can make the argument that just about anything can be tied to interstate commerce, and therefore the Feds have authority over everything.  The tenth amendment makes it clear that this interpretation is wrong.   

Consider the situation where someone wants to grow marijuana in their backyard for personal consumption.  This clearly has nothing to do with interstate commerce.  Yet, the Feds claim that they have the authority to regulate this, as the grower might change their mind, and sell the marijuana to someone in another state.   By this interpretation the commerce clause would cover everything, as anything can lead to interstate commerce.  That interpretation violates the tenth amendment.

Now we can have a discussion on whether Federal regulation of marijuana is good or bad, but that's a separate discussion from whether or not the Constitution allows the Feds to regulate it.

Similarly, during the 1970s energy crisis, the Feds instituted a nationwide speed limit of 55 mph.  Whether or not this was good or bad, the Constitution clearly does not give the Feds the authority to regulate speed limits on state and local roads.  However, the country turned a blind eye to the Constitutional issues as we were in a gasoline crisis.  The shortage was so bad that many areas had to resort to even/odd gas rationing (if your license plate was an odd number you could only buy gas on odd numbered days).


Keep in mind, that when President Eisenhower created the "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways", he understood that the commerce clause didn't give him the authority.  His claim was that it was for national defense (A responsibility which is delegated to the Feds).  Therefore, the highway system is designed to allow for the movement of tanks.   However, the realities of the modern world make this concept obsolete.  Today in times of conflict,  we transport troops and gear by plane, not land.

This trade war is a gift to China.   Trump is teaching the rest of the world that the US is not a reliable trading partner, it is not an ally in defense, nor will it help you in your time of need.   Any country that is interested in a stable growing economy will want to shift to China as a trading partner, and perhaps Russia for defense.   Neither of these choices are good for the US in the short term or the long term.

designguybrown said:

Meh. Seems emotional and sentimental. If you are placing your content on the web, you are practically posting it on the street for general view with absurd hopes of pennies trickling in on some desperate fancy rather than through proper business channels with an effective strategy of legally protecting and promoting yourself - childish. Most people who do such art that they may avoid other types of structured paid work - what do they expect when they treat their skill set as a hobby - likely not wanting to work for others on a structured gig - if that's even around much? What's even the issue here - not getting a piece of the trifling leavings of scrapers and edu-content pedlars? pedantic. Art needs to stop being a vague creation-vocation of the rando people and grow up. Successful society is based on complex businesses and legal structures requiring serious people acting seriously. Creativity is a real skill and needs focused training and  a hierarchy of knowledgeable people to propagate it through society. Sorry, but I have little symp for the dilettantes and dabblers hoping to otherwise avoid the soulless cubicle, construction site, and assembly line.

It's not that simple.  The AI companies are scraping material that isn't on the web.  They are scanning and scraping printed books.  They are scraping copyrighted movies.   

gwydion said:

jfabula1 said:

lukevaxhacker said:

Very simple in concept: return production to the U.S., although hasn't been done for years. Remember the Fremont plant…

It’s funny, anti-tariffs are all complaining and crying about high prices, dude open your brains, America had been ripped off for a long long time and we keep borrowing..we’re sinking fast. If Apple has to raise prices so be it. Will still gonna buy them.

And exactly how America has been ripped off?

We are being ripped off in the same way your local grocery store is ripping you off.     You spend a lot of money at your grocery store buying products from them, yet they never buy products from your.  In other words you send them more money than they send you.   

If you ignore the fact that the grocery store is selling you products that you want and need, it is clearly a ripoff.

foregoneconclusion said:

mfryd said: I am merely pointing out that these are a complicated issues.

"Fair use" isn't really complicated. I'll provide an example that applies to myself. I like to design my own graphics for movies and TV shows that I have ripped from discs and stream from a home media server. To create the graphics, I typically go to the internet and look at a variety of posters and packaging that exist for that particular movie/show and choose the images and typographic treatments I like best and then digitally edit those elements into a new composition. This approach is "fair use" ONLY because the copyrighted material that I'm using without permission will not appear anywhere other than on my home Apple TV. In other words, it's purely for personal use. It has no commercial or professional application.

However, if I put those same graphic treatments into a professional portfolio to try and get a job designing those kinds of graphics, it wouldn't be "fair use" anymore. I would be violating copyright because I had never received permission to use any of the material professionally. 

So you can see how the ruling by this particular judge is ignoring a very obvious copyright issue in regards to permissions. The only way an AI program that was trained on copyrighted material without the appropriate permissions could be considered "fair use" would be if the AI program was never made available to the public. Literally like if Sam Altman was the only person that could use ChatGPT. Because once it's publicly available as a product of a professional organization, it can't possibly be considered personal use anymore...just like the example of putting my home ATV graphics that used copyrighted material without permission into a professional portfolio. 

"Fair use" includes all sorts of things.   My understanding is that I can incorporate verbatim scenes from a copyrighted movie into a new production in which I provide a review of the movie.  I believe this is the case even if my production is a commercial endeavor, and I am making a boatload of money from it. 

danox said:

mfryd said:

It's a complicated topic.

There are good points on both sides of the training question.  On one hand, AI programs are being trained based on the hard work of previous human artists.  The AI companies are profiting, but the original artists get nothing. 

On the other hand, the AI is not doing anything new.  It's common for individuals to study the work of others, and use that study to inform their work.  When interviewed, great directors often discuss how they have studied the works of great directors to learn their techniques and style.  The AI programs are simply really good at this.

My understanding, is that an art student can study the works of a current artist, and produce new works in that style.   I don't believe an artist's style is protectable by copyright.  What an artist can't do, is to produce work that is essentially a copy of an existing copyrighted work, or that contains copyrighted elements (including copyrighted characters).  An artist also has to be careful that work done in someone else's style is not represented as being that artist's work.  If I were to write a book in the style of Dr. Seuss, I would need to make it very clear that the book was *not* a work by Dr. Seuss. 

Copyright allows control over making copies of a creative work.  It does not allow control over works that were "inspired" by a copyrighted piece.

An issue with current AI, is that it doesn't understand the limitations of copyright law, and can sometimes produce results that would typically be considered copyright infringement.  

It's going to take a while to sort out what rights various parties should have.   There is more than one reasonable way to resolve the legal issues.  It will be interesting to see how Congress and the courts resolve these issues.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice.  It is merely my imperfect understanding of some of the issues.

AI can’t think and it can’t reason and because of that it knows no limitations today, however one day it will, but that day is decades away, but that does not mean you should get to scrape all of the copyrighted material since 1920 at your leisure but the protected class gets to do so.

People are allowed to scrape as much copyrighted material as they like.  Machines are simply better at it.

This is a common challenge with new technology.  In the past, certain activities were limited by the technology of the time.  Therefore, certain activities could not rise to the level where they were a common issue.  As technology improves, so do various abilities.

For instance, 50 years ago we didn't really need laws governing the ability for private companies to track people.  If they wanted to track someone, they hired a private investigator, and he would follow the person of interest.  If you wanted to track 50 people, you would need 50 private investigators.  The available technology limited the collection of tracking data.   If a company wanted to track someone, and sell that information, they could.  It just wasn't a common thing.

foregoneconclusion said:

mfryd said: I am not a lawyer, however this is my understanding of what someone can do without violating copyright law.

Yes, a person can do that without violating copyright. But AI doesn't work like the human mind. AI requires the complete works of Stephen King to be copied into a database. If it's done without permission, then it's a violation of copyright. 

One can certainly make a reasonable case that an internal copy is a violation.  One can also make a case that an internal copy is fair use.