Also, not whoring for +5 Informative here, but what does the IRB have to say about this.

Because unless American universities are telling researchers they can skip IRB, it doesn't matter what they say. And they are opening themselves up to an immediate and punishing lawsuit if they are allowing human research to skip IRB. Like it's probably on the docket right now.

Of course, such research can crop up in other, less ethical, countries. Oh, who am I kidding? US ethics are shot to hell right now as well.

Sidestep copyright? Check.
Sidestep all other IP law? Check.
Put content designers/lawyers/coders/professionals out of work because screw human dignity for more pointless concentration of capital? Check.

And now...
Sidestep HIPAA and other medical ethics laws? Check.

They cry, "It's AI. It's different. Believe us, we're doing something NEW and UNIQUE."

Bollocks. Training data is simply created data, with the same protections it had when it was created. Creation is new. Actual derivative works are new. Generating results through AI is simply capturing the status of the rear view mirror after putting it through a blender. And sometimes it really does look like it came out of a blender. Moreover, it's generated on the backs of good will contributions to the Internet and a sharing ideal.

That data and those who created it have laws to protect them.

The claims that they're "generating" something "new" are irrelevant, because it's the big lie. Only humans make things that are "new." This is just mooching off the efforts of human beings with a massive power requirement that will drive up consumer power prices to infinity. So... double mooching. And carbon. And everything else that comes with cool toys that have a poor result to cost ratio.

Screw that. No cheap power for this. No driving humans out of satisfying jobs that give their lives meaning. If the message doesn't come across loud and clear, it's time for public demonstrations.

This sounds like a recipe for a flood of AI slop and spamscam apps.

Email is also free to publish. How'd that work out?

Feels kinda like Apple Newton to me. Maybe we get it right later, after a complete overhaul. Maybe the entire idea is scrapped and we get an iPhone kind of thing.

I'm laughing at LLMs and their champions as much as I laughed at Newton users. It's a toy. If you have disposable cash, go play!

Otherwise, let the experts do their work. There are lots of really good applications for iterative machine learning, such as detecting heart failure from x-rays, but LLM is just a novel use case. It will never do what has been promised. It's Microsoft Bob all over again.

Actually, I love that you made that assumption, I really do. Proves my point.

Hey, I voted for Harris!

Is that why this is being modded troll? Because y'all think it's a Trump support post? LOL

Dumbasses. I voted for Harris.

The problem is, she only had a few months to run. Guess what? That doesn't work.

Really? I'm already being modded Troll? What I said is 100% true. This has been an alert for mod abuse. Some people just don't seem to like reality.

I live in dairy farm country. The reason eggs got so expensive was an outbreak of avian flu that caused farmers to slaughter most of their laying stock to protect the rest. It was so catastrophic because they were in cages, weren't healthy to begin with, and were stacked within less than a foot of each other in all directions (unless you got top bunk).

Meanwhile, non-factory farmed eggs are now cheaper. I think I like the price of eggs where they are, now that I don't have to worry about salmonella. Maybe restaurant warnings about undercooked eggs will even disappear.

So, hey Slashdot, I'm sorry for responding to rsilvergun, but people should know why their eggs became so costly. It was that the way they were being produced was also costly, in the quality and health of the product. Enjoy your nutritious, healthy eggs America.

Yeah. It's almost like they know climate change is going to cause an inevitable, unbelievable disaster, have set themselves up for living with $500 cans of Campbell's soup, and are looking at colonizing Mars.

Something is happening here. There might be reason behind political support for this skew. I'm very frightened it's not just limitless greed.

I'm so sorry that the Democratic party is such a feckless gerontocracy that they couldn't be bothered to provide a viable candidate in the first place.

Really? Let's hide that our guy is losing his mind and then stifle a primary! Great call.

I remember when I bought my current TV (in 2016) and I specifically asked for 1080p because I thought there would be a price break. They were actually more expensive.

So I got 4k, and everything is upscaled 1080p anyway. It would have been nice to have native resolution for that. I guess they were cheaper to make? Only recently has 4k content been available for streaming, after buying in 2016. It took 7-9 years. I did not bother to buy any 4k BDs to replace my library, it was throwing money in the fireplace, and streaming has only recently caught up.

And all it is is extra data in my situation. IMO, 4k is not significantly better at 55". I think you need 90" or more for it even to matter. I will never own a TV that size.

I do not want this standard or this feature. I expect backlash will force manufacturers to restore the option to turn it the hell off. But they seem very dug in.

"The soap opera effect" is well known. A not insignificant amount of people don't like it. I'm sure their market data shows this, as TVs are connected devices and they can just look at the user settings. Do they have the data to support deprecation? I doubt it.

So back to the original question. Is Dolby Vision 2 going to be cheaper? Am I going to pay a premium for my own choice? Will sets without Dolby Vision 2 even be available in a few years?

Is it time to buy a new TV so I can get at least 5-7 more years of my own choices about something I own?

... user choice. Control over what you own. etc.

It's fine that you don't want 24fps. Turn on motion smoothing. Chances are, it's already on. Your life is easy.

It's not fine that a standard is taking away the choice from people who hate "the soap opera effect." I have motion smoothing turned off for everything but sports.

I am grateful for motion smoothing when I'm watching football. User preferences should be worth something.

The problem is taking control away from the viewer because "Dolby knows better." I don't understand why software is developed without user options. Are they afraid we will be too stupid to understand?

I mean, LG "TruMotion" settings are buried under so many levels of UI that I almost couldn't find it, even with Google. This was obviously to discourage turning it off. Why is the industry so invested in forcing 60 fps on people?

I don't understand. Why is it accepted that "Big Brother" will decide for us? Why does "Big Brother" even bother? What is the end-game here?

Well, my TV is 800 nits peak, and there I agree. It's not up to snuff. It's not even up to the informal HDR10 standard, which is 1000-4000 nits peak. HDR10, informally is supposed to have at least 1000 nits peak.

My computer monitor is 1000 nits. At monitor range, some of my games are fabulous with this enhancement. It was as revolutionary as hardware T&L, tessellation, and bloom for me. I would definitely buy an HDR monitor again.

But on a TV, under typical ambient living room lighting, yeah. Underwhelming AF, if not unwatchable.

Mod parent up. That's the problem. They're gee-whizzing on the highlights and ignoring scene integrity.