If the toaster has good brownness and heat-bounce sensors, I'm not sure AI is needed: just turn up or down the heat cells where needed to keep it even. Statistical analysis may be needed to manage adjacent cells, but once the formulas are known via lab testing it should be predictable.

nuf smelt.

The problem is an overly large proportion of them are creeps, and one may not be able to tell the difference.

...makes me want to buy it.

to fouling up the AI Apocalypse Prevention Act...

You will get an AI toaster and you will like it!

(Unless the damned bubble pops)

on my PC. I can't see it in Task Manager, but start getting "out of memory" errors after a couple of weeks and have to reboot. Restarting Firefox alone is insufficient to clear it. I suspect it has something to do with the graphics card rather than primary RAM, and could be co-caused with some other app.

Sorry, I made a boo boo.

They're hard to find though, because the interstellar medium of hydrogen and helium gas between the stars absorbs ultraviolet light.

It's a good thing hydrogen does that because our hydrogen atmosphere keeps us from getting big-time sun-burn.

I don't think training a model with copyrighted data is any kind of gray zone at all.

Running inference against such a model _might_ be infringing.

But I don't see the legal argument that model training would be.

Think of model training as lossy data compression. You provide an input, it produces a compressed artifact, and it can no longer reproduce the original when you uncompress it. It can produce _something_. It cannot reproduce the original.

On slashdot, we all agree that format shifting copyrighted works should be allowed and unrestricted, right?

If there is applicable case law here about how lossy a "reproduction" can be before copyright has something to say about it, that would be relevant. Do you know of any?

I think you're repeating something that feels emotionally valid but in my experience, isn't factually (or legally) accurate.

I have found AI models to be frustratingly _obedient_ of copyright.

I'll be in a situation where I ask a specific question about what a document says, and the AI repeatedly says the work is copyrighted and it can't just tell me what it says _verbatim_, but it can answer specific questions for me in its own words (while telling me to check the original).

Two examples from my life are procedural questions about what Roberts Rules of Order would require in a given situation, and, what ASD STE-100 says about how to name/word things.

The applicable US law would appear to be USC 17 Sec 106 and 107, which on one hand limits derivative works, but on the other, allows fair use for purposes of teaching, scholarship, or research.

(USC references provided by AI, btw. Which I haven't read)

I used to agree with you, and then oddly enough, about 25-30 years ago, I came across this signature on another regular slashdot posters postings:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

(AI tells me the attribution is "The Red Lily", Anatole France, 1894)

A betting pool in which big-tech company will finally pop the bubble?

Maybe there is an upper practical limit to how much can be mined out of the training data? Most newer stuff is corrupted with AI generated results creating problems that some compare to inbreeding.

How about Unidentified Flying Force?