How long before the labels start going after new artists that sound like existing ones?

You know, where someone is "inspired" by a singer, a band or a songwriter that they've idolized for years and thus their own creations are heavily influenced by those artists?

If there's a chance for a new Lambo or Porsche in the corporate car park at EMI or WMG you *know* they'll be working on such law suits right now!

I've also wondered why there's no restriction on voice-actors who impersonate famous people -- but if you do it with AI then you are right in the firing line.

I suspect a company paying $50k/month for tokens is going to need a whole lotta RTX 3090s. I also suspect that this 24GB model is not as powerful or efficient as something they can get in the cloud. But with that said, this is basically what I do at home - run one locally for common tasks. I keep waiting for the local ones to achieve parity with the cloud versions, but RAM is so expensive because of the data centers, that I'm not sure it will happen before SkyNet launches the nukes.

I'd also add an SDR to that kit... opens up a whole new world if you're needing it for a survivalist or prepper situation.

A cheap RTLSDR stick and wire antenna will do the job fine with one of the many SDR programs that'll run on the Pi.

His opinion seemed clearly explained and well reasoned. As opposed to your comment...

We should have the tools. I'm not arguing that we should go back to agrarian lifestyles. But somehow we as a society should find a way to not permit wanton waste of resources in the name of cheap, fleeting entertainment.

The issue is that those videos are being created en masse. People would simply not create them in the first place. Making resources so easily available that people waste them without thinking is the reason capitalism has turned our society into a planet destroying machine and called it "quality of life". Nobody's quality of life is improved by the existence of videos of fake cats doing improbable things, yet we've now invested a civilization worth of resources into creating them. It's the broken window fallacy, writ so large that it's unrecognizable.

Problem is people aren't just querying. They're saying "generate a video of a cat riding a shark", which uses a LOT of inference and compute.

But then you would not have learned the value of a 10 second Google search before asking a question with an extremely easy to find answer.

a) I don't believe you. You're lying and there's nothing you can say that will change my mind. I live in Australia where I probably drive to a weekend dinner a distance that you call a "road trip". The number of people here who have done 800+km in a day is vanishingly small. 800km is NOT 8 hours. It'll be around 10 at a minimum even if you're on highway the whole time. There's pee stops. There's traffic and animal slow downs. There's leg stretching and snacking. The fact that you think 800km can be done in 8 hours in any setting other than a controlled speed run tells me that you've probably never driven long distance, ever.

b) If you drive 8 hours with your wife in the car without taking any rest stops, then you are both irresponsible adults. Which tracks with the rest of what you say here.

c) Because making car decisions based on something you do once or twice in your lifetime is stupid. Which tracks with the rest of what you're saying here.

d) Can't afford it? Then go on vacation closer. Driving 2% of the Earth's equatorial circumference because you want a vacay is not a fundamental right you spoiled brat. Get your highly educated kids to chip in for a better vehicle, seeing as you raised them so well.

I hurl insults because I feel it's completely justified. And given the string of factual inaccuracies throughout your post, I doubt you specifically raised kids to go into research fields to help the environment. If you had anywhere NEAR that level of prescience and foresight, you would not think along the lines of "I've earned the right to pollute for no good reason".

a) 800km in a day is beyond being a rare edge case. The % of the population that has ever done, or will ever do, 800km in a single day would be below 1%.
b) In 800km of driving, you will take more than 45 minutes worth of breaks anyway. You just need to use your brain a little and plan it to stop at a charging station. Although, if you're American, I do understand that brain use is quite the ask.
c) There are now EVs capable of going 800km in a single charge, if you truly are doing 800km in a day with any degree of regularity (which I highly doubt)
d) Even if you do wait a bit more, that small price is worth it for a planet we can live on, you childish, stupid, self-centered, short sighted sack of dumb horseshit.

EVs are now a direct replacement for ALL consumer use cases. If you need to tow your shitty trailer home from London to Prague twice a week then bad luck. Charging stations are common enough now.

Meanwhile I also own a Tesla, and am using a CarPlay adapter with it. Maps is better, particularly lane guidance and actually telling me which motorway junction number I'm coming off at. I can share an ETA with my contacts. I can listen to subscriber-only (paid) Podcasts. I can use WhatsApp (via voice of course), something sadly essential in the UK as the vast majority use that. I can listen to audiobooks from other than Audible. I can use the BBC Sounds app. I can...

You get the idea. I agree with you about integration - the time I will use the built-in map is if I'm on a longer journey that needs charging on the way, or if the journey is so short that none of the above really matters.

Personally I hope the rumours about CarPlay integration being worked on by Tesla are true, although I'd be surprised I must admit. But for me - works well.

I'd guess, but stressing guess and agree would need to be studied, that your bias would be correct. I'm not necessarily a fan of the every single person's study plan is different school of thought, and think there's a lot to be gained from structure.

On the socialising I'm not quite so sure though - it's definitely changed the nature of it though. My 'kids' (now all adults, youngest about to enter final year of university) socialising all the time on-line. Voice chats with friends, Discord is how they organise meeting up etc.. They've also all three kept a healthy in-person socialisation side too, which is the part I was initially worried by when I saw this panning out over several years. I think that last bit is key - if you can balance both, then you get the benefits of going out with your friends with also the benefits of having a wider geographical friend base and the ability to stay in touch more easily.

Perhaps read the actual comment? I am agreeing with the study - quoted directly: ""The findings suggest that screen time can support children's and adolescents' cognitive processing. Presumably, the essential point here is what kind of things they do in their screen time. Teachers and parents should encourage children to use devices and screens in such ways that promote active thinking, problem-solving, creativity and learning," states Doctoral Researcher Petri Jalanko from the University of Jyvaskyla.".

Yes, it's nice to see a study backing it of course but this has been intuitively obvious for a while. The "screen time is killing our kids!" crowd is just the latest generational re-incarnation of the "computer games are killing our kids" from the 1980s, or "Dungeons and Dragons is killing our kids!" from the late 70s through the 80s, "TV is killing our kids!"...right back to Socrates moaning about writing. Just another moral panic.

Since we're in 80s mode, let's quote The Karate Kid: "concentrate on quality of what you know, not quantity". It's the nature of the screen time that's important, not necessarily the raw bulk. Are you interacting with people online, are you reading stuff? Are you watching some videos where you learn some things as well as just the latest cat videos or TikTok dance? In short, are you using the screen as a portal to the generalities of life instead of just watching brainrot all day every day?

I suspect knowing that will be key to whether the screen time is hurting or helping. And as ever, a balance is required. 100% screen and no in-person interactions is obviously harmful, provably so thanks to the pandemic providing us with data here. I'd also posit that 100% outside and in-person will be good, but not as rounded as a decent mix between the two since you gain access to different experiences online.