I can't remember things well enough to know which is which....BUT!

It seems that the 'color' magic of "Warbreaker" would make for some excellent visuals. The first half of the story would make an excellent show as well...(I kind of remember the ending not quite having the same feel though.)

Is the difference between this new idea and a Chromebook just a middle-ware layer where the processing/rendering takes place? So instead of interacting with a browser, I interact with a picture of a browser and the 'computer' that generated that picture interacts with the actual webpage?

Is there a way to 'rearchitect' everything to not need a dedicated 'middle-ware' layer, but instead your 'display terminal' receives feeds of pre-computed and pre-rendered webpages and applications from multiple sources?

Aren't we already in a 'data-center' crisis? We're concentrating the 'compute' too much and it's overloading the grid. Taking the part that's still 'distributed' and centralizing that as well seems like compounding the problem.

This was my thought. What do the 'terminals' to these 'rented computers' look like?

How much 'local processing' do they need to do the communication and display? Wouldn't they still need RAM and hardware of some sort?

I have to assume that Google isn't the authoritative record for these domains. I guess they might be, and in that case the block seems 'somewhat' reasonable. However, if they aren't, and they are just an echo of the authoritative server, then it seems incredibly short-sighted to target Google here.
Is OpenDNS targeted as well, or xFinity, or any of a million other DNS 'repeaters.'

Canal+ is European. I wonder what percentage of European 'Internet users' have Google as their primary DNS server. I'm guessing those [famous IPs] are hosted in the US, and it would server Europe better to point at something more local? (Does Google have other DNS server IPs in other regions? Can you load-balance a single IP such that it doesn't require bouncing off an specific machine? Or is that what DNS would provide?)

Is there an actual JVM here? Looking at what TeaVM does, it seems it's more of a 'cross-compiler' (if that's a term, post says 'transpiles'), and it allows you to write JAVA but compile it to JavaScript (WASM). (Which are famously 'not the same thing.')

So, it's for JAVA programmers who don't want to learn JS? The deliverable seems like a monolithic, minified, partially obfuscated text file?

"Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop!"

Replying to your 'image generation' statement.

(This goes back to my previous post...which the punchline is: "AI is great, when it doesn't have to be correct.")

The mistake is asking it to draw a real person. AI shouldn't be drawing real people anymore than it should be recreating the Mona Lisa, (or writing an existing song, like a story from last week.) It should be generating NEW stuff. Ask it to draw a person that doesn't exist. That way it doesn't need to be correct, and it can do a great job.

The key is 'new' 'non-factual' stuff. For anything else.....use something else.

What I tell all my bosses when they ask me to 'use more AI' is this:

AI is great, when it doesn't have to be correct.

I love Suno. I think it's a miracle. AI making clipart, album covers, poetry? Fine. If it's something you enjoy, go ahead. (I have to say that AI 'copying people' and 'displacing artists' etc are separate problems from what I'm talking about, which is 'accuracy.')

However, if you want a 'fact' then you sure as crap don't want AI. It doesn't know if it's answer is correct or not. It doesn't know what 'correct' means. It just know that it seems similar other things it's seen.

The same goes for AI writing code. Code and algorithms require too much accuracy for me to trust AI. Maybe it's good enough for a 'pre-review' block-out, and saves you some typing. But I'd definitely expect a re-factor afterwards.

Hearing a song is not copyright infringement.

Memorizing lyrics is not copyright infringement.

Reproducing a song as a professional service definitely IS copyright infringement. An interesting question is whether the AI even knew it matched the lyrics. It might have had to do an 'after the fact' search with a 'plagiarism detector' to say, "oops, I guess that matches someone else.)

Blaming the prompts doesn't float, because that's basically saying "He asked me nicely."

---
I think I'd find out if the algorithm was deterministic. If you could find a way to always get it to copy something, that's a problem. If you can 'trick' it into sometimes copying something. Then the tool isn't actually accountable.

It's always been my comment that:

AI is great, as long as it doesn't have to be correct.

If you just want a picture, it can do that. If you want a picture of a specific person, it'll likely be wrong.
If you want it to write a song, it can do that. If you want it to write the sheet music for Beethoven, I wouldn't trust it.

That's the problem I have with AI at work. They keep asking us to integrate it into our Business Intelligence work, but I wouldn't trust it to analyze my business at all. Those answers are supposed to be correct. I'm not going to trust the AI to do it.

I'm a life-long computer guy....but I prefer to keep the computers out of the other appliances.

Finding a 'dumb' TV, or 'dumb' appliances is something you have to commit to. It's not easy, it's a lot of work.

I can't tell if it's because of the potential for additional income from upgrades/options, or whether it's setting the stage for 'recurring revenue' or whether it's just about data-collection and marketing, but they don't like to build 'dumb' appliances anymore.

I figured it might just be that all those features test well with the focus group and that's what they think the entire world wants. ( kinda like how all corporations thinks everyone wants AI in their toothbrush) But I can't imagine why they don't have 'base' models as well that save manufacturing/licensing costs. There's always gotta be the value option....right?

Why would you want to only edit cloud-storage files with your on-disk software?

If you're going to do cloud editing, wouldn't you use the cloud software?

--
(This question might have a better answer)

Why does MS want my files on One-Drive so bad? It costs them money. It's cheaper for them to let me edit local files than it is for them to force me to put them in a free One Drive account?
Is it really just in the hope that I 'might' decide to upgrade...even though I've rejected it over and over and over for the last 10 years?

Is there a clause in the EULA that lets them train their AI on all the files I keep in my free One-Drive account?

Is it just lock-in, and Libre Office can't access those files...and it's an extra step if I want to copy them over to GoogleDrive?

I just don't get it.

When there's a thing that's popular, but demonstrably bad...how do you get rid of it?

Alcohol, (specifically alcohol abuse) is bad for the individual and for the community. Because of the latter, it's not a 'personal preference' thing anymore. So, they attempted to regulate it by enforcing a ban.

TikTok is exactly the same. There's nothing wrong with a video posting service. There is something wrong when people are being harmed by that service (ie, dangerous viral challenges, misinformation, spying?) So they are attempting to regulate by enforcing a ban.

However, because of its popularity (whether earned or addicted) the users say NO! And either reject or ignore the harm, and just say they want it anyway so they get it in another form, or from another source.

If you have a responsibility to protect the community what do you do?

So, no checked luggage, no carry-on luggage. Are they expecting that you're going to have the return trip on the same day?

It seems like booking a flight is going to turn into 'ordering a pizza.'

Pick your seat option:
Pick your luggage option:
Pick your food option:
Pick your in-flight entertainment option:
Do you want a hot towel?

I don't understand the 'motion capture' aspect of it. (Ignore the fact that nobody is going to be recognized for their motion capture. That's 100% of the reason that stuntmen work in the first place. You can't tell who the person is running around on fire.)

With Mo-Cap, the inputs are taken as 'inputs' and then are manipulated by the animators. Even without AI, the animators can manipulate the inputs and create new motions. Is the problem that 'new motions' are created from the inputs recorded from the actors? Or is the problem that "AI" did it, and not a digital animation artist?

Or does this new agreement extend to any manipulation/extension of the motion capture data? What about simply 'mirroring' it, and playing it "left-handed" instead of "right-handed." The actor didn't get paid for reaching out with his left hand as well.