That is AMAZING! Finally, a use for a 'DPU' other than 'slave processor' - you know, the thing the Commodore disk drives had way back in '79. I guess the IBM FEP was a DPU too. What's old is new again.
Tesla's FSD and Waymo's approach are wildly different, enough so that you can't really compare them. The biggest two differences are: 1) Musk's cheap, so Teslas only use cameras to figure out what's going on around them; Waymos use cameras, ultrasonic sensors, radar, and lidar; 2) Waymos are only deployed on specific roads and streets that have been very heavily surveyed and Waymos have been trained on.
I trust Tesla's FSD about as far as I can throw it, and while it's been helpful and prevented an accident or two for me when I've been distracted, it's basically a glorified lane assist and cruise control. I'd not hesitate to fall asleep in the back of a driverless Waymo.
The parent poster asks the most important question of all: How will the student's intellectual property rights be protected, or will they be protected at all? If the AI gets me off the "blank page", does it get a piece? Does this "school" for having provided it? Do the councillors for their suggestions?
The show Silicon Valley had an episode on "brain rape" (theft of intellectual property). This sounds like the same thing, but on a factory-farming scale.
The government told social media companies to silence people who were critical of Biden.
When did this happen? Citation, please.
You are aware that Joe Biden, while seemingly a nice enough guy, was wildly unpopular as a leader, including among the left? It was the Democrats, after all, who convinced him not to run for a second term.
Nothing what is being accused of here covers the act of monopolising. Following a common standard approach is not anti-trust, in fact whole bodies exist to standardise how things are done, and whole industry bodies self regulate the way industries operate.
What's being alleged here is closer to price fixing, which is also an antitrust violation. Hypothetically, let's say four major automakers got together and said, "We all know we have access to the latest in brake technology, but we collectively agree not to deploy it until two years from now," presumably for business reasons. That kind of collusion is illegal.
Everybody seems to be complaining
So I ask you (everybody): Is anything good? Cuz we ain't gonna have the Year of the Linux Desktop without a UI. Do we all switch to Enlightenment?
Your comment is pants.
North Korea is using a TRS-80 running Eliza
Surely you know that's an absurdly dismissive opinion? North Korea has the capacity to gain access to anything anyone else does, especially if it comes from China.
It's rather amusing that Flock also spies on the cops using it.
The arrogance is insane. What a fucking waste of time to argue this when your business model is exactly the fucking same.
Boy howdy, have I got news for you!
People forget that California is a huge market. There's a reason why when California changes its emission standards for vehicles, large automakers don't just go "well, fuck you, I'm not going to sell cars in California." It's a market that is extremely painful to walk away from, and virtually no major company has done that (two exceptions, before someone "well actually"s me: Firearms companies and insurance companies. But those market segments are meaningfully different -- insurance companies were simply seeing a bad market given fires and earthquakes, and California wants firearm companies to not do business in the state).
I'll acknowledge that Uber and Lyft did threaten to leave the state right before Proposition 22 was passed, giving them legal cover to continue to treat their employees unfairly. I suspect they'll threaten to do that again. They will not. I ain't losing sleep over that.
The wait time for a driver to come from Nevada is going to suck
"jackpot: you may have an unneccessary change record" -- message from "diff"
