Then you're even more wrong. The model output is the subject of the person using or distributing the copy. Always has been and we've endless case law about this.

If you want to use a pencil to draw the mouse, Disney can't sue you. If you distribute that picture or sell it, then you'll be in a world of hurt. You'll be, not Faber-Castell, not your highschool arts teacher, you.

The output of AI is irrelevant until you do something with it.

That's completely irrelevant. It would also be irrelevant if she was complaining about English students rather than math students. The act of learning has always had different requirements than the act of doing and executing.

In grade school we teach people how to add, subtract, multiply and divide. Once they have LEARNED that skill, we give them calculators. The act of learning provides understanding.

Put that to the real world: Do you want an engineer designing a bridge when they don't understand the underlying concepts and how the formulas work? That engineer will almost certainly not be using those formulas by hand, they'll be using software for it. But having gone through the process of manually doing it at university allows them to understand how different variables impact the output and when the software tool gives completely stupid responses.

No it's not. Using a tool during the course of teaching is not the same as using a tool during the course of learning. There's a reason we don't give kids in grade 1 a calculator and ask them to first understand how to add numbers together.

The entire article is stupid ragebait for stupid people who have ceased applying any thought to the world around them.

Competition is usually good. YouTube has been rapidly enshittifying, and there isn't really any alternative.

You can have both physical controls and a big screen. I like having a big screen for Android Auto, but wouldn't give up the buttons for other functions either.

Some of that stuff is good. Autopilot systems that actually work are great for long distance driving. You need some compute power for Android Auto/Carplay, and having a built in sat nav can be useful too. Remote management of air conditioning and charging are very nice to have.

Of course BMW's ads and other bullshit would be enough for me to return the car. My car has physical buttons for key functions too.

If they do find ice there, it's going to be huge. And an issue for the US, because everyone wants to go look there, but if the Chinese find it first it will be politically difficult to justify following their lead.

Unfortunately cooperation is too much to hope for, but it looks likely that China will get boots on the ground there before 2030 either way.

I don't want a car the use of which is dependent on me gluing my shitty phone onto the windscreen. I don't want a car where I need to squint at a tiny navigation screen to see where I am going next. Everyone here talking about touch screens vs buttons are missing the point. Both can exist, and when they do a larger, easier to read screen is infinitely better than a small hard to use one.

Even better than that would be proper functional HUDs, Mazda have something approaching this in the new Mazda 3, but so far I've found it lacking in every car.

Which company can you state is *blocking* your view? Sidenote: are you 4 foot tall? If so sorry.

I've driven a lot of new cars (i rent them frequently). I've never seen a single one where the touch screen extends beyond the top of the existing dash and obscures any view.

Basically never? The vast majority of the car industry, including "first party" car parts are not designed, manufactured or have their life spans dictated by the car manufacturer. And even if they do the world is full of a wealth of 3rd party parts.

e.g. Siemens stopped manufacturing the crankshaft index sensor for my previous 20 year old car, it took about 10 minutes to order one from China. GM stopped manufacturing the hydraulic hoses (with a special custom connector) for my dad's old convertible. He found replacement quickly (and better quality than the GM rubber/plastic rubbish). He actually did this twice because GM thought it was a good idea to have a metal roof hook engage a plastic tab in the car, the workshop said "the GM part isn't available, but we have found an after market part that is a clone and it's metal!" My nextdoor neighbour has an aftermarket laser headlight in his BMW as well as he wasn't prepared to pay the couple of thousands that BMW wanted for a first party replacement.

Car parts are available providing cars are available. They disappear when the cars hit the scrap heap, not when the manufacturer gives up, and often there's even a car in the scrap heap with the right working part for you.

I don't want to be rear-ended by you squinting at a tiny device you shoehorned into your dangerous driving experience, so I guess we both can't win here.

I'm with you on the buttons though.

TFA is stupid for multiple reasons. Just not having a big touch screen doesn't eliminate the computer. The modern car uses a computer to draw the dashboard and to manage all manner of sensors and safety systems.

Your comment is applying a headline to something that isn't at all under discussion. The Euro NCAP says if you want a 5 star rating a bunch of core controls must be available as touch control. Currently it looks like it will affect 3 makers of cars on the road, Tesla (the functionality of windscreen wipers can't be managed without the touchscreen), VW who on a small set of their models put capacitive touch sensors on the steering wheel, and Volvo (by extension Polestar) who for some reason made the hazard indicator button a capacitive one.

No one will loose a 5 star NCAP rating because of a large touchscreen. They will lose it if any of the following aren't physical buttons:
- Indicators (turn signals)
- Hazard lights (emergency flashers)
- Horn
- Windscreen wipers
- eCall SOS function (emergency call)

HVAC, Sound system, navigation, all of that isn't included.

By the way I very much do want a bigger screen in my car. It makes it easier to see navigation reducing the time I take my eyes off the road. For the few touch related activities (not that I do many because the voice recognition in my car is excellent) it also makes it easier and more forgiving to have *big* touch buttons to press. Big screens are better for safety than small screens.

Also all of this is irrelevant. Cars have computers with RAM for reasons other than touchscreens.

I could not disagree more. Yes all car makers should support AA and CarPlay, but precisely none of them shouldn't develop their own system. No car on the market should ever have its functionality dependent on another device. A car needs to have 100% of its functionality (that includes navigation systems and music, etc) without being at the whims of a flat battery, a broken USB cable, a Spoty wireless connection, a software glitch on the phone, having been mugged in the street or otherwise broken your phone or even just a compatibility problem.

Use Android Auto if you want, but I would *never* buy a car that *relied* on it.