flydog

beowulfschmidt said:

AppleInsider said:

a ruling by a state government that cannot be contradicted by the federal government.

I'm gonna have to see if I can find out how that works.  Normally, federal law trumps state law unless it's something the federal constitution delegates to the states.  I can't imagine steering provisions fall under that.

mattinoz said:

Sorry but there is nothing in this story that suggests a “shake up”.
it reads like slight rearranging of people to value their contributions. One is given a chance to take a boarder responsibility , one given a chance to focus. Both are promotions. 

As shake up go that is like a 2.1on the Richter scale.

gatorguy said:

What would Apple say if you asked them?

Apple made a nearly identical rights claim change in its Terms of Service at the end of March, worded in much the same way but far more vaguely. But no one noticed. Perhaps that's why Apple has never clarified what it means, either. My guess is the same as Adobe's, but like them, Apple ( and everyone else) needs to be clearer on it.

"Except to the extent prohibited by law, you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing as well as to use the materials you submit for Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material, including via automated content filters and/or human review." 

There are too many questions surrounding how our data is being used across all LLM training and delivered AI services. Companies try to avoid discussing it unless the questions become too public. For Adobe they did.