69 MJ is 19.17 kWh. About 86p of electricity at today’s wholesale price in the UK (£45/MWh: today is fairly average).

The research they are doing is great, but there’s so much engineering to be done to turn fusion into something practical; something capable of running streams of pulses, not just single ones.

This was the last experiment for this reactor running it outside of design limits.

The Wire

The trained model is a work derived from masses of copywrite material. Distribution of that model is infringement, same as distributing copies of movies. Public access to that model is infringement, just as a public screening of a movie is.

People keep thinking it’s “the picture the AI drew” that’s the issue. They’re wrong. It’s the “AI” itself.

What do you think the trained model is other than a derived work?

Promotional images are still under copyright.

AI is creating an image based on someone else’s property. The difference is it’s owned by a corporation.

This isn’t the issue. The copyright infringement is the creation of the model using the copywrite work as training data.

All NYT is doing is demonstrating that the model must have been created using copywrite works, and hence infringement has taken place. They are not stating that the model is committing an infringement itself.

They are showing that the author of the tool has comitted massive copyright infringement in the process construction of the tool.

…unless they licensed all the copyright works they trained the model on. (Hint: they didn’t, and we know they didn’t because the copyright holders haven’t licensed their work for that purpose. )

It doesn’t matter if a company charges or not for anything. It’s not a factor in copyright law.

Copyleft is not public domain, and requires copyright law to function.

The article uses Midjourney. Nobody is tuning it.

…and that’s why the person you originally replied to asked their question. General popularity is generally a bad proxy metric for personal preference.

Is it impossible to like things outside the mainstream?

No, it’s a melted down speed camera.

Enjoying messing around doesn’t mean people aren’t good. Shit posts in particular show a level of awareness, otherwise it’s just a post.

If fair use is cut down…

It’s not a case of cutting down fair use. It’s a case 9f enforcing current fair use limits.

The choices here are to respect copyright or destroy it. Having and AI exception is nonsense.

"I’m not illegally downloading the latest blockbuster/ best seller / chart topping album. I’m scraping the internet for training data for my AI. It just so happens I need to filter the data by hand before it can injest it. I keep looking for suitable data, but haven’t identified any yet. "

There’s plenty of non copyright material out there to do research on. It won’t make for useful AI products, but they can start licensing for that.

Probably needs a UN peace keeping force.

…but Hamas is also a political entity and the government of Palestine. Sanctions would matter if Gaza wasn’t already blockaded by Israel.

Trials in the Hague followed by imprisonment of all those guilty of war crimes. At this point that Includes most IDF members, their leaders, and the government.

Actually bring consequences to bear and let other Israelis know that this isn’t acceptable. Israel also needs to be cut off from the teat of the American military industrial complex.

Same standards for Hamas, but that’s a much smaller number.

Any further sabre rattling is met with quick and strong sanctions.

Basically the UN needs to do it’s job, but that needs America not to veto.

…and then return it to his grieving wife?

Yes. A diamond is just a rock somebody found. Same for gold. They have value because they are scarce and people think they are pretty (up until the last couple of centuries when we developed industrial uses for both). Nobody has ever needed a diamond or a hunk of gold to survive, yet they have value because we say that they are valuable.

New name: “Y”