ignirtoq

It was a joke.

Exactly. Ever skip a stone on the surface of a lake? It’s like that, except it’s a continuous skip, with air instead of water, and you’re inside the stone.

I don’t see how this wouldn’t be derivative work. I highly doubt a robust, commercial software solution using AI-generated code would not have modified that code. I use AI to generate boilerplate code for my side projects, and it’s exceedingly rare that its product is 100% correct. Since that generated code is not copyrightable, it’s public domain, and now I’m creating a derived work from it, so that derived work is mine.

As AI gets better at generating code and we can directly use it without modification, this may become an issue. Or maybe not. Maybe once the AI is that good, you no longer have software companies, since you can just generate the code you need, so software development as a business becomes obsolete, like the old human profession of “computer.”

This makes sense to me, and is in line with recent interpretations about AI-generated artwork. Basically, if a human directly creates something, it’s protected by copyright. But if someone makes a thing that itself creates something, that secondary work is not protected by copyright. AI-generated artwork is an extreme example of this, but if that’s the framework, applying it to data newly generated by any code seems reasonable.

This wouldn’t/shouldn’t apply to something like compression, where you start with a work directly created by someone, apply an algorithm to transform it into a compressed state, and then apply another algorithm to transform the data back into the original work. That original work was still created by someone and so should be protected by copyright. But a novel generation of data, like the game state in memory during the execution of the game’s programming, was never directly created by someone, and so isn’t protected.

If it’s dangerous to repair it, it’s dangerous to own. That’s the domain for regulations by the government, not arbitrary software restrictions by software manufacturers.

They don’t implement these to keep you safe. They do it purely to make more money.

Quantum field theory conserves mass-energy, so the new mass is coming from the energy in the Higgs field itself. It settles to a lower energy state and basically transfers that energy as mass to all of the particles that couple with it. Since it’s mass-energy and not just mass that generates gravitational distortions, the large-scale gravitational evolution of the universe probably won’t change, as this just moves things around a bit. It’s not creating energy out of nothing.

If the pig option included immune suppression drugs for the rest of your life, or for like 10 years until it wore out and you had to have another major surgery to replace it, mechanical valve plus blood thinners and a yearly blood draw sounds like the much better deal. I know blood thinners come with their own long term effects, but nothing compared to immune suppression.

The problem is the battery, and how they have a finite lifespan. Usually that’s about 400 recharge cycles, and after that the batteries are finished.

And if you can’t replace it, then it’s the end of the line for the gadget, and it’s tossed onto the e-waste pile.

It is so incredibly aggravating that it’s 2024 and unreplaceable batteries are still a thing. I guess Apple didn’t get enough shade when they did this in phones so it just became industry-standard. It’s both horrible for the environment and for the consumer.

I guarantee the engineers could easily make it replaceable for little to no added cost, they’re just specifically instructed by business leaders not to.