eriamjh
About
- Username
- eriamjh
- Joined
- Visits
- 217
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,558
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 1,847
Reactions
-
MacBook Pro Touch Bar could be revived as a strip that supports Apple Pencil
I agree with this 100%. When the results are on screen, no one looks down except for notes or references, not controls.crowley said:If you need to look away from the screen then it’s a dead end. Touch Bar was a dumb idea from the start.
-
Apple in talks with Rivian, likely over Apple Car revival
I’ll believe it when I see it or when Apple/Rivian announces something.
Rivian is 18-24 months from bankruptcy at their current rate of cash burn. If Apple spent $10B on their car and has nothing to show for it, Rivian would just be another hole to throw money down. I want Rivian to succeed. I really do, but the reality is they’re still not gross margin profitable (cost to build more than money brought in when sold).A partnership would be Rivian giving Apple money, which they don’t have. How could Apple benefit from it? Rivian needs Apple, not vice-versa.
-
Apple's generative AI may be the only one that was trained legally & ethically
I guess I’ll go out on a limb and ask what part of using copyrighted works to train anything was illegal against their terms of service?What law protects the works from being read?People spout words like being “used without permission” but where is it identified that this use requires permission?I saw an artists work. Do I need their permission to use it for thought or a computer program? Do I need to credit someone for their work to be used as input?Let’s bring this concept full circle. What does copyrighting anything disallow its use, training, inspiration, application, or analysts from anything else?Some guy who did stuff once said “Good artists create. Great artists steal.” What’s being stolen? Did I just steal that quote?Was it copyrighted or is it general knowledge of a thing because it was said and written down? Do I have to credit the person who said it? Do I owe him money? Was he a jerk to people? Is he even alive?
do I owe his heirs something now?I find the arguments to be word salad and gobbledygook. The word “used” is vague when it comes to the application of an artists work. I can’t pay them for thinking about their work. Why should I pay them because I fed a JPG of it into a computer to created someone else from it?Explain what’s immoral or wrong about any of this and justify it by defining how machine learning changes any other “use” of copyrighted work. Define “use”.
I welcome counterpoints that justify that point logically and legally. Perhaps some sides are trying to create a way of being compensated for something they didn’t intend to happen. Sounds like money grab.“Stop not paying me for something I never thought I could demand money for!” -
Apple's generative AI may be the only one that was trained legally & ethically
I don’t buy the whole concept of “legally and ethically” trained.I learned a lot of things from copyrighted books and movies, etc. There no such thing as protected concepts, thoughts, ideas, or words. Even IP is only protected from being “used” illegally and learning and understanding it isn’t “use”.I read a book. I paid for it. Maybe that’s the issue. Patents are protected from being used, not being read or understood.If it’s in the internet and not behind a paywall, it’s fair use to learn from.If I write a book report, is that infringement? If I am inspired by a work of art and I paint something, is that infringement? No.Similar to is not the same as “copied”. Authors and artists are just upset a computer does it and there’s no carve out in law for that… yet.
-
Apple's macOS 15 to get rare cognitive boost via Project GreyParrot
I have a grey parrot and she’s obsessed with fart sounds, belching, corn, and almonds.
Greys are very smart, but they are also little smart asses.
