danox

stuffe said:

dewme said:

Apple Silicon is one of the best planned and best executed moves by Apple - ever. If you're going to talk about Tim Cook's legacy, Apple Silicon has to be one of the crown jewels of his accomplishments at Apple. Truly masterful. 

I think you are right that Cook has quietly masterminded an absolutely unmatched in house development in the industry, but I also recall that it was the purchase of PA Semi that laid the ground work for all this, and the A4 was really the point that this march was started.  Jobs had the foresight here, and Cook has done the legwork.  

This is no fluke or flash in the pan, this is 17 years of solid and measurable year on year progression and advancement from nobodies to top tier without a single blip.  That's a record anyone in any industry would be rightly proud of.

MplsP said:

Too bad but not unexpected. The auto execs have been digging their heels in the sand for years. Look how long it took them to adopt CarPlay. I saw a demo of the Aston Martin implementation on YouTube and Apple doesn’t completely takes over the car’s systems, rather they provide an API that allows the systems to be displayed through CarPlay. Importantly, the API also allows the manufacturers to maintain some control and customize the displays so they’re not a ‘generic Apple’ display. Customers can also opt for ‘CarPlay Classic’ if they prefer. At least it sounds like the manufacturers are still allowing that.

“[Volvo’s] chief executive Håkan Samuelsson did admit that car makers don't so software as well as tech companies. ‘There are others who can do that better, and then we should offer that in our cars,’ he insisted.” It’s rather ironic that he admits that while at the same time refusing to adopt CarPlay Ultra.

“Audi believes it should provide drivers ‘a customized and seamless digital experience.’” Another hypocritical statement. CarPlay Ultra does just that - integrates so the experience is more seamless rather than the rather clunky parallel setup they have now.

GM provides a classic example and warning. They decided they wanted to ditch CarPlay and try to make money on their own system and botched it so bad they had to issue a stop sale order to fix the problems. Then people found out GM was using the system to spy on them and was selling their driving data. No thanks, GM. You make second-rate cars to begin with and for this you can go to hell as far as I’m concerned.

sflagel said:

it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better. 

There will be one car maker or two worldwide that will use Apple Carplay. Why because there’s fierce competition within the car manufacturing industry, remember when Apple Pay first came out, after designing it, Apple had to do the hard work of going around the world trying to get it established, later on when it became popular all the other financial institutions started to cry foul for their shortsightedness.

History is repeating itself again.

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.

22july2013 said:

If everyone who writes a comment on this page will send a fee to Dr Seuss for learning from his books to read and speak, then I will pay attention to their views if they oppose AI learning from published sources. But if you aren't willing to pay everyone that you learn from, for every word that comes out of your mouth, then I don't see why AI should have to pay either. Next, are we going to charge aliens for learning English by reading the radio waves that are being sent into deep space?