Again, but consider the costs of enabling it. That CPU you want to replace would have to be packaged and kept in stock according to this. Somebody has to sit on a stockpile of parts just in case a random user wants to keep a piece of old gear going. Not green if those parts gets disposed of when most users just move on and don't upgrade/repair.

In the name of greenliness manufacturers must produce and package replacement parts? That few people will ever buy and which will ultimately be liquidated? We'll never learn, will we?

Knowing that the bias can be tuned, and that the people working on these models feel that it needs to be is worrying. Imagine developing a model around the notion that e.g. "The Bible" is factually true. Any historical or scientific accounts in conflict with the Bible must then be down-weighted accordingly. "How did Trump survive the assassination attempt?" "God spared him so that he could fulfill his destiny of making America great again" is the crap it would tell you.

If it truly does lean left as a result of the factual information it was trained on, is that a bias that should be corrected for?

I've used AMD GPUs for nearly two decades. I've always found them reliable and their performance satisfactory. But I'm not only interested in gaming, which is the market their consumer cards obviously target. I'm more interested in content creation and generative AI. Too many things in those categories just work better on nVidia than on AMD if they even work at all. All the performance in the world can't truly make up for not being able to run CUDA exclusive applications.

Myspace died because it tried to become more like Facebook rather than further differentiating itself from it. Facebook allowed me to reconnect with family and acquaintances I had never encountered online before. Messaging became the normal way to let someone know evening plans, or to send an interesting link to a specific person. I can't even estimate the number of people I'd deduced had met their demise when I'd see the same face three or four times when checking my feed. Facebook was (is) about where you go/went to school, where you worked, and who you really knew IRL. Myspace was the virtual equivalent of putting on an album, and leaving some CDs and books on a table in an unlocked room alongside a note reading "BRB, make yourself at home." It was where people cataloged and displayed their interests, hobbies and favorite entertainers and celebrities. And while ranking your "Top 8" friends was surely a real thing most people I knew used their top 8 to recommend their favorite musical artists, obscure interests, and even other favorite websites. Facebook became worse in the absence of Myspace as people began posting more things on Facebook that would have been posted on Myspace previously. Facebook is/was about presenting yourself online as you wanted to be seen by your family and associates. Myspace was about presenting your interests online to be seen by friends and acquaintances you wanted to let know what you were actually into.

That's easy to assume. Or maybe this will lead to Wendy's keeping the morning employees on until the rush dies down or notifying the evening employees they need to be there earlier to start their shift. So its possible that individual employees won't be working that much harder if surge price is used to cover the extra hours' wages paid during surge periods. Until the employee backlash against having to stay over/arrive earlier hits and then it will again be the same people working harder for the same pay just as they do now. While the company makes more money per sale at peak times.

I'm guessing your local buffet has a lunch and a dinner price that changes at the same time each day? I bet they offer items at dinner time that aren't available at lunch time as well. If you've eaten there before you should have a rough idea of which price you'll be paying based on the time of day you arrive to eat there. So it's really not at all the same thing.

Were only at the point where its mostly the image creators who are concerned their images are used in the training. What happens when the corporations who produce the things get involved? The likenesses of many autos need licensing to be used in game, films, and in the production of replicas. Even armaments companies have objected to the military hardware they manufacture being depicted in games. How long until those companies decide images depicting their products must be removed from training data? How long until Apple or Nike complain about their logos showing up in generated images they may not want to be associated with?

I've never gamed as a social activity. Games for me are a solo affair, something to do when you are winding down. Probably in the minority on that these days.

Does any grown person really want this simply to appear to be using an Apple device? Or do they mostly want artificially restricted perks such as emojis that are intended to only be available on recognized Apple devices?

It's the the internet that's broken.

"Buy the end of this decade US based researchers will accomplish the great feat of a general artificial intelligence..."

"AI isn't being creative; all it's doing is reassembling existing works into something similar." So, like movie and the music industries then... The AI isn't doing this of its own volition but rather in response to a user/artist's prompt. Sit 100 random people down with an AI image generator. Let them each generate 1000 images and pick their 10 favorites. I bet if you mixed those images up you'd be able to tell which images were made by the same person with 75% or greater accuracy. The more creative the prompting the more novel the resulting images will tend to be.

Because 10% of zero is zero. They were trying to make money off of the huge number of games which are free to play but then make a fortune off of in-app purchases.