You just know that this "rule" was passed immediately after several senators placed bets on whether or not Congress would pass a rule limiting trading on prediction markets.

Anything that wasn't action, drama, or comedy was largely dropped and almost all of the science was quick summary explanations.

Alsup ruled that the scanning was format shifting and thus 'fair use'. Alsup ruled that their usage of downloaded works for training was 'fair use'. But Anthropic kept copies of downloaded works 'as a library' - including works they didn't use for the model training. Alsup ruled that that was not fair use. Alsup also said he would not delay the trial while Anthropic appealed (which is something that usually happens), hence why Anthropic settled.

There has long been copyright exemptions for 'fair use' - in particular 'transformative' applications where the end result doesn't resemble the source material. Essentially the fair use exemption for 'transformative' exactly matches this sort of scenario and should be a slam dunk win for the model creators.

Betteridge's law of headlines says "no".

It reduces neural inhibition. Normally the body limits strength to far from its maximum because maximum output has a high risk of injury (torn tendons, muscle tears), but the body can override the protection in emergencies (the annecdotes about mothers lifting cars, etc.)

Hey here is a simple idea... Why not do a toll? You know something simple that they do with trucks. For what I hate about this tax is what happens when you are outside of the country?

Not sure what you are smoking, but the human brain is nowhere close to optimal. Just changing substrate would allow many orders of magnitude improvement. Biological brains depend on diffusion gradients, active transport pumps, and relatively large physical systems, and have to be incredibly redundant and robust to extreme noise. Also the vast majority of the brain isn't dedicated to intelligence.

Probably 10 order of magnitude improvements are available overall at a minimum.

I hate crap like this, and this is my explanation.

Large companies are not innovative, large companies suck little companies dry. Compare the dot com bubble with the AI bubble. In the dot com bubble we had thousands of small companies riding the wave. Of course a very large chunk of them went under. In the AI bubble we have a few big companies and that's it. How is that better for innovation? The only really new company is Open AI. Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Facebook are all borg companies where innovation goes to die.

Steve Jobs was never afraid to kill off cash cows if something more innovative comes along. The companies I mentioned are not willing. Chinese companies have figured out how to run these models on less hardware. Yet American companies keep talking billions upon billions. They do so so that no little company would ever challenge them.

Take for example Musk and Optimus vs Unitree Robots. Unitree has a video where it shows a robot that can be knocked down and it gets up without problems. Musk to counter shows a robot with power lines that can do a simple kata. GIVE ME A BREAK! This is the best American engineering can do?

So to critique European innovation is yet another tactic by American "innovation" companies to try and make things go their way. BTW what the article fails to mention is that labor costs quite a bit more in America, than Europe. I am talking about high tech labor.

It isn't replacing radiologists because it doesn't matter how much better than the radiologist the IA is, the radiologists control what the requirements are, and they will always ensure that a human radiologist has to do the 'final review'.

This. I do not understand this behavior. Especially when they move their horizontal phone between their mouth and ear, so they can hear the call better.

Why don't people use their phone as it was originally designed? You know, with putting the better speaker right up to their ear? Are people really that stupid?

They could always trying pricing it less than real hamburger. It is priced like a luxury good, of course demand will be limited.

The watches are measuring 'heart rate variability' (HRV) not just 'heart rate'. And HRV is an superb measurement of physiological stress/training stress. The stress relevant for making decisions about workout intensity and recovery.

I always suspected that smoking was being used to do this in the past. I actually experimented with inhaling incense fumes (10 years ago?) to get a similar effect but abandoned it since I didn't have equipment to reasonable track progress and it was just a side interest.

I'm curious if they had backups or if they were able to corrupt and destroy the backups too.