freeman

It doesn't really challenge the desktop CPU in multithreaded tests where the 170w are actually relevant.

The test also includes AI tasks, the Apple chip seems to spend around 20% of real estate on that, the desktop CPU had none.

There is no max alloted time, there is a max alloted time per decision but France has been chaining them back to back for years with no issues.

I suppose if smaller countries tried to do the same they would be brought to heel via political measures.

Theoretically it's possible that somebody randomly chose a war crime from 7 decades ago to soapbox about.

In reality its almost always a Nazi apologist. It also happens far more often than somebody making posts for things like the Rwanda genocide

Nice, Lemmy is finally not a leftist echo chamber, we can have Nazi apologia!

Its a service.

If only there was some kind of entity representing you the people, pooling your money to help the unfortunate..

"Generative" is not a thing in copyright law.

You regard them as different to tools like Word. That does not exist in the law.

When you originally posted that they OpenAI should be on the hook I thought you meant they were the ones commiting copyright infringement. Not that they would violate private contracts with their customers.

Private agreements is not my business.

There is however a push by both sides to settle this in law. Whatever happens will affect everyone.

Yes they do.

Which is why you want an agreement to make them liable for copyright infringement (plagiarism is not a crime itself).

You would have to pay for distributing copyright infringing material whether created by AI or humans or just straight up copied.

I don't care if AI will be used,commercially or otherwise.

I am worried about further limitations being placed upon the general public (not "creatives"/publishers/AI corps) either by reinterpretation of existing laws, amendment of existing laws or legislation of brand new rights (for copyright holders/creators, not the general public).

I don't even care who wins, the "creatives" or tech/AI, just that we don't get further shafted.

You need a very specific prompt to make a copy. Even to just be similar enough you have to put the proper input and try a lot of repetitions.

That's why the right holders are going after the training which included copying by the AI corpos.

In your dream land right holders could just prompt the AI till it spit something close to their work and sue the AI corp for that. Repeat as needed ; infinite money glitch.

Obviously it doesn't work that way.

Neither are AI vendors. We have locally hosted AI models and they don't contain what they output. You can tell by the actual size.

Nope. The output is based on the users input in both cases.

It's not stealing, its not even 'piracy' which also is not stealing.

Copyright laws need to be scaled back, to not criminalize socially accepted behavior, not expand.