Effectively, this has been an ongoing initiative across DoTs for a long while now. The issue is that it’s a hodgepodge approach baked piecemeal into various grants and other programs. But, yeah, digital, vendor agnostic, secure transit infrastructure is always on a lot of DOT folks’ minds.
Wealth cap paired with a wealth floor and UBI, and we’re really cooking.
Complains about an issued patent but nowhere actually includes the claims of the issue patent in the text of the article. Jfc, what garbage. If you look up the issued claims, they are pretty narrow and easy to design around. This article is bait.
No, that’s not even remotely true. The person doesn’t know what they’re talking about whatsoever. Over 75% of patent prosecution (bringing am application to issued claims) revolves around arguing whether a piece of prior art preempts the instant application. Just a buck wild utter opposite understanding of how patent examination works.
What cell phones had internet in the 90s? Keep in mind, the Nokia brick in the early 00s is like an eidetic memory for most millennials today.
This is brand tarnishment pretty clearly on the trademark side, too. If not for the apparent lasso the admin has around executives’ nuts with their green cards (according to the former CLO in an article), this would represent an immense amount of liability on DHS’ part. I still wonder if they might nevertheless press forward with litigation just to tamp down on the brand damage tbh
ETA: also, the potential recoverable damages are actually theoretically immense in a case like this, between statutory damages per copyright infringement and loss of sales to brand tarnishment. Very low chance, asymptotic to 0 percent likelihood, but it would be immensely satisfying if this is what zeros out ICE incredible funding bump.
Most of these figures are guesses along a spectrum of “educated” since many models, like ChatGPT, are effectively opaque to everyone and we have no idea what the current iteration architecture actually looks like. But MIT did do a very solid study not too long ago that looked at the energy cost for various queries for various architectures. Text queries for very large GPT models actually had a higher energy cost than image gen using a normal number of iterations for Stable Diffusion models actually, which is pretty crazy. Anyhow, you’re looking at per-query energy usage of like 15 seconds microwaving at full power to riding a bike a few blocks. When tallied over the immense number of queries being serviced, it does add up.
That all said, I think energy consumption is a silly thing to attack AI over. Modernize, modularize, and decentralize the grids and convert to non-GHG sources and it doesn’t matter–there are other concerns with AI that are far more pressing (like deskilling effects and inability to control mis- and disinformation).
This is a distressingly unusually solid analysis for lemmy. I agree with one exception–writing to memory absolutely counts as a distribution. Accordingly, if a generative model output an infringing work, it for sure could create liability for infringement. I think this will ultimately work similarly to music copyright where conscious/explicitly intentional copying is not itself the threshold test, but rather degree of similarity. And if you have prompts that specifically target towards infringement, you’re going to get some sort of contributory infringement structure. I think there is also potentially useful case law to look at in terms of infringement arising out of work-for-hire situations, where the contractor may not have infringed intentionally but the supervisor knew and intended their instructions to produce an effectively infringing work. That is, if there is any case law on this pretty narrow fact pattern.