SeaweedSorcerer t1_j8yzwdc wrote

I think that’s the point. It’s meant to be a demonstration of their capabilities, basically an advertisement, to entice companies to buy their AI products. It’s not a product in its own. Corporations are pretty much always careful to keep their ads inoffensive. Especially when AI chat bots have a history of being taken down within a matter of days when they go off the rails.


SeaweedSorcerer t1_j6gf8j5 wrote

One reason is that AI training is done by copying the training data to hundreds or even thousands of training nodes. It’s near to creating a book of every painting and giving that book to every person learning art without compensating or even crediting the artists who have art in that book.

Another reason is trained AIs have inhuman memories and their models spit out the original art, in some cases near verbatim. You can look at it as compressing the data. Usually highly lossy compression but not always. And courts have shown it is clearly piracy to copy differently compressed movies/music/etc.


SeaweedSorcerer t1_ixxfpow wrote

A mechanical switch that a human turns on and off? That sounds like a recipe for cars frequently running without their tail lights at all, or having them left on and the battery draining (okay not a huge risk with a Tesla as long as the big battery is powering them).

One of my cars has a mechanical switch for its interior lights and the only thing it’s reliable about is staying on until the battery drains thanks to my kids leaving them on. Give me software control with logic behind it, please.


SeaweedSorcerer t1_ixrshca wrote

In a lot of cases it’s something like “after building 50,000 of this thing and doing in factory acceptance testing/real world telemetry on them we’ve realized tolerance constant for sensor x should have been 0.054 instead of 0.057. We’ve changed it.” Software gets messy when it touches the real world.


SeaweedSorcerer t1_ixrrylk wrote

The article mixes together two “recalls”: one that affects more cars and will be fixed with a software update, and a smaller recall that needs a physical inspection. This, as ever, is evidence that the regulators need to break down the “recall” regulation to catch up with a world where cars can software update trivially.