This story and the Triangle Shirtwaist fire should be a reminder that almost every large business owner would kill you if it meant they could make slightly more money.
How much extra value do you think they generated in a couple of hours of making plastic pipes? That's what their lives were worth to the factory owners.
I've successfully used a 1050 Ti and a 3060 Ti with Linux Mint and the proprietary drivers (selected through the GUI driver manager). So if anyone reading this is in a similar situation it might be worth it to try that.
I think you may have misread their comment.
Lower cost of living in china, ignoring of fair wages, ignoring of environmental concerns all reduce costs
Not making land yachts and not actively having a temper tantrum over the market transitioning to EVs might both be contributing factors as well.
Copyrights (rights to media content) do not lapse because of failure to enforce them.
Trademarks (the right to call your product a specific name) can lapse if members of the general public start associating it with a type of product rather than your specific brand. This happened with "zipper", "jet ski", and "popsicle". But you can't sue Grandma Smith because she mistakingly referred to an Xbox as "a Nintendo".
From watching the opening I didn't like the writing of the dialogue.
Pretty good track record with videogames too.
Some ARM CPUs that are advertised as microcontrollers have 32 bit address spaces and roughly the same power as an i486.
Big Bang Theory is less like nerd humor and more like autism blackface.
This model isn’t “learning” anything in any way that is even remotely like how humans learn. You are deliberately simplifying the complexity of the human brain to make that comparison.
I do think the complexity of artificial neural networks is overstated. A real neuron is a lot more complex than an artificial one, and real neurons are not simply feed forward like ANNs (which have to be because they are trained using back-propagation), but instead have their own spontaneous activity (which kinda implies that real neural networks don't learn using stochastic gradient descent with back-propagation). But to say that there's nothing at all comparable between the way humans learn and the way ANNs learn is wrong IMO.
If you read books such as V.S. Ramachandran and Sandra Blakeslee's Phantoms in the Brain or Oliver Sacks' The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat you will see lots of descriptions of patients with anosognosia brought on by brain injury. These are people who, for example, are unable to see but also incapable of recognizing this inability. If you ask them to describe what they see in front of them they will make something up on the spot (in a process called confabulation) and not realize they've done it. They'll tell you what they've made up while believing that they're telling the truth. (Vision is just one example, anosognosia can manifest in many different cognitive domains).
It is V.S Ramachandran's belief that there are two processes that occur in the Brain, a confabulator (or "yes man" so to speak) and an anomaly detector (or "critic"). The yes-man's job is to offer up explanations for sensory input that fit within the existing mental model of the world, whereas the critic's job is to advocate for changing the world-model to fit the sensory input. In patients with anosognosia something has gone wrong in the connection between the critic and the yes man in a particular cognitive domain, and as a result the yes-man is the only one doing any work. Even in a healthy brain you can see the effects of the interplay between these two processes, such as with the placebo effect and in hallucinations brought on by sensory deprivation.
I think ANNs in general and LLMs in particular are similar to the yes-man process, but lack a critic to go along with it.
What implications does that have on copyright law? I don't know. Real neurons in a petri dish have already been trained to play games like DOOM and control the yoke of a simulated airplane. If they were trained instead to somehow draw pictures what would the legal implications of that be?
There's a belief that laws and political systems are derived from some sort of deep philosophical insight, but I think most of the time they're really just whatever works in practice. So, what I'm trying to say is that we can just agree that what OpenAI does is bad and should be illegal without having to come up with a moral imperative that forces us to ban it.
https://xkcd.com/963/
Fortunately I haven't had to open it in a very long time.