Sure they can, they just don’t want to.

Mine did too, but it was to circumvent a requirement to get CEO approval for purchases over x. We weren’t a multinational, ut would custom order laptops with no hard drive and hard drives separately so we weren’t below the limit and then put the machines together.

For those that want to do that a Mac is not the machine for them.

It's more than just GDPR compliance, which can be substantial and why some companies block their websites from access by EU IP addresses. Apple, as a gatekeeper, is in the EU's crosshairs and on issue is interoperability. Apple sees this translation feature as a selling point, and if the EU were to require Apple to allow other manufacturers to access and offer it, they lose what they think I an important feature unique to AirPods. As a result, no soup for the EU.

I often wonder how they manage to sneak into the solar system undetected, only to be seen buzzing that trailer park, and then disappearing again. Alien teenagers on a joy ride?

Whatever model, I just used the web browser version. You do point out an interesting quirk, sometimes the same prompt will yield different answers; not sure if that is a result of model differences.

This is the tool that when asked for a list of NFL teams with six letter names replied

Here is a list of the NFL teams that have six letters in their name: Bears, Bengals, Browns, Colts, Giants, Lions,Packers, Ravens, and Saints.

A bigger issue, IMHO, is what happens when someone discovers OSS code in a commercial app and attempts to force the code to be released based on an OSS license. A court could ultimately have to decide how much code reuse is enough to make the OSS license binding even if the developer did not know they were incorporating OSS code. Whether Github can disclaim liability is a separate issue from the larger one of AI incorporating OSS code in suggestions it makes and how OSS licenses will apply in such an environment.

I agree, but expecting teachers to enforce rules that will just put them between parents and administration I they do then at some point you just have to say "Not my problem."

While I agree with that, the first time a phone gets stolen or broken, the parents will demand the school pay for it since it was in their custody when it happened. My philosophy is if a kid doesn't want to learn, as long as they don't disrupt the class and impact others, fine. They'll eventually get hit with a clue by four...

More like

• 1st offense, take phone away and parents scream bloody murder
• 2cf offense, call parents and get yelled at for hurting their snowflake
• 3rd offenses, kick them out and parents bring lawyer and threaten to sue

Of course, even step 1 won't happen because the school district doesn't want 'problems' and tells teachers not to do anything, and by the way you can't fail anyone either.

Yea, that whole "Oh woe is me, my world is changing and I don't like it" attitude gets old.

Which was my point, thank you for agreeing with me, because that is just what I said: The article you reference is a split decision - AI can train on works they purchased, but could be taken to court over using pirated copies. Per TFA:

The thrust of the studios’ lawsuits will likely be decided by one question: Are AI companies covered by fair use, the legal doctrine in intellectual property law that allows creators to build upon copyrighted works without a license? On that issue, a court found earlier this year that Amazon-backed Anthropic is on solid legal ground, at least with respect to training. The technology is “among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup. Still, the court set the case for trial over allegations that the company illegal downloaded millions of books to create a library that was used for training. Anthropic, which later settled the lawsuit, faced potential damages of hundreds of millions of dollars stemming from the decision that may have laid the groundwork for Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney and Universal to get similar payouts depending on what they unearth in discovery over how Midjourney obtained copies of thousands of films and TV shosws (sic) that were repurposed to teach its image generator.

We can quibble over whether being potentially liable for using illegally obtained works means you can't train on them, which lawyers will no doubt make bank on arguing, but until that questions is resolved it remains to be seen what AI can and can't legally use to train.

What I responded to was the OP's Horseshit. Artists, authors and musicians have lost cases over and over again on this; a statement that is partially true, i.e. you can train on legally acquired material but are open to possible copyright infringement for pirated material. That, per TFA, is still going to trial.

As or what you responded to, if you can cite case law where fair use is extended beyond how it is applied currently and thus it is OK to use copyrighted/trademarked to create new works that are substantially identical to the point a reasonable person can't tell if they were created by the owner and sell them commercially, please do. I seriously doubt any court has said it's legal to use AI to create a movie or create art work for t-shirts, for example, that uses output almost identical to copyrighted material and claim fair use. As for the examples in TFA, they do not look like fair use such as where someone is comparing the two for an article (As is done in TFA) , or parody, IMHO, I think a court needs to rule that absent the traditional exemptions, creating near exact versions is a violation.

The article you reference is a split decision - AI can train on works they purchased, but could be taken to court over using pirated copies. That makes sense to me. It also did not seem to address the issue of what is the legal status of the AI output, just how copyrighted works could be used for training. T.

The other question, is who is guilty of copyright/trademark infringement if they use AI to produce copies of copyrighted/trademarked material. AI is certainly a tool, but it is also creator of the work, just as someone who uses Photoshop to do the same thing is using a tool and is a creator; only in AI's case the two are the same.

It seems reasonable to use AI to write a plotline about a brilliant detective who uses deduction to solve crimes and has a sidekick who helps him, set it in Berlin and have the case revolve around a person who appeared to be murdered but was really alive and seeking revenge on an abusive lover. It could tap into Sherlock Holmes and similar stories to come up with a story and, IMHO, not be infringing.

OTOH, creating a new Mickey Mouse cartoon clearly crosses the line and, IMHO, the AI company should be liable of infringement, since they are the ones who actually created the work.

his case, per TFA, seems to hinge on how the works were obtained as well as the output it generates. In addition, since they charge for it, it possibly is a commercial copyright issue as well with significant damages.

Yea, I've given up trying to explain tariffs are a hidden tax to some of my MAGA friends, they're convinced the exporting countries pay it and it is free money to the US. They also think this will stop the flow of drugs into the US because now they can't mail them to end users; and that their are Americans lining up for jobs now done by immigrants, except of course them and their kids. The sad part is they are not dumb, just fully bought into what Trump sold.