"Electric VTOL air taxi" seems like marketing buzz rather than a description.

I guess this is really just an electric quadcopter. And that's fine from a technology point of view, but the speed and range seem limited so I can't imagine people using this to travel more than 30 miles/50km or so, so wondering who they want to sell this to.

Bitcoin is a fad that after being busted, is worth only 500 billion dollars.

UK rail prices are high but we seem to be looking at about twice the price of the equivalent German rail journey rather than 5 times, and not substantially slower.

Sure, the London-centric nature of the rail system is a problem, especially because changing involves faffing about on the tube, but on the whole, the UK's rail service is pretty average for Europe.

In places that use metric system and not exposed to the Empire, never in my life have I heard a single person have to refer to any part ever. The only time the use an odd metric is if they play gold or trade some commodities.

It's not about blaming the model. It's about illustrating that the model could well be argued to contain copyrighted information.

Instead of "Mickey Mouse", I create "Cartoon Mouse" or public domain characters like "Snow White" or "Beauty and the Beast". The AI creates something superficially similar to Disney's versions. If a human artist created it there would be no question, but the AI artist created it.

Disney comes and insists that it uses their IP and demonstrates that the model does indeed contain a representation of their characters. Can you swear, under oath, that no part of the image is derived from a Disney property?

It doesn't even require a lot of hard work. I tried "Starry Night by Vincent Van Goph" in nightCafe. Ended up with something very similar to the famous painting. Same swirls and everything.

Not an issue in this case because it's out of copyright. But if you try "Mickey Mouse" and get a weird picture of a mutant mickey, it's pretty clear that the training data contains a decent amount of Disney images. I doubt Disney are being that free with their licencing.

Why are you so easily indoctrinated? We used to question left or right and debate and make our own minds.

Itâ(TM)s yours much in the same way a car refusing to go to certain places at the makersâ(TM) will would.

Atheists have to consider humans some kind of machine.

I agree. Itâ(TM)s one of the old sites, just as Slashdot. I think Slashdot got abandoned too soon. The moderation industry is huge and they pioneered creative ways to moderate, a precursor to things like âoecommunity notesâ or other systems.

If this is the people working on AI we are doomed. Statistically, even doing bad business will get you to 10x. I propose a different test: if a panel of real normal humans can not tell if a person has empathy, they will be considered a machine, regardless of biology and mechanics. Actually, a similar test is proposed in the movie Bladerunner.

> âoeOur entire focus is on the crewmembers in the submersible ***and their families,***

They think they are likely dead too.

For a publication like Nature, I'd say this is a pretty obvious decision. This is very much about facts and the truth. Illustrating with some algorithm's interpretation doesn't make sense.

Easiest way to install Steam Link on FireTV.

Often, someone will improve someone elseâ(TM)s code only to later find it broke it, and in a way that would have needed more context than the code itself provides. Is the code alone enough?