They'd still do this even if they had the opportunity to not do it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again-- the only thing AI is good at is defrauding others. It's literally what it is trained to do.
It probably depends on what state or country you live in. Mine was also boring and mostly factual.
"fake" news eh? Hmm, we'll see about that I guess.
I use Lemmy and Mastodon, so I'm not really a great person to ask.
But I think all federated platforms have branding issues. "You should use Lemmy." What does this mean exactly? What site do you join? What app do you download on the phone?
Never saw it but I was always really impressed by the art style of the 3D. It looked very true to what the peanuts should look like.
I just updated my home network to 2.5gb so I'm glad to see this.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding my argument.
If you use AI to, for example, learn how to decompress or recompress a file, how can you be sure that the outputting function doesn't match one-for-one an (open or closed) source implementation? You literally cannot, as the AI system generally operates on a black box and cannot "learn" how to attribute and, cynically, the people who make the AI tools do not want to learn how to attribute code from the original developers. Since AI learns code from source code, there's a higher liklihood it matches a known implementation that it does represent a wholly unique implementation.
If you take Godot's renderer code (MIT project) and copy and paste it into a project that is also MIT, that doesn't mean you can get rid of the Godot attribution. You must preserve the attribution of the code -- this is important to learn for all open source developers.
The "learning" argument you're proposing, which is buying into AI anthropomorphisation, still doesn't protect you from copyright. If you have photographic memory and worked at adobe, for example, you can't simply "learn" the code and output the same code to an open source competitor. This is generally why people who work on closed source try to avoid working in same-field open source -- the risk of violation is way too high unless you intentionally break design decisions.
Individual code snippets might not be covered but it depends on the line count -- but that also changes from territory to territory. IANAL, so my general advice for people who are "learning" from closed source to contribute to alike open source: just don't. There are other open source projects that can use your skills. And if you're looking at other open source projects and taking whole functions, you must attribute the project in question (this is pretty easy but depends also on the license of the code you're looking at.) AI doesn't have the capacity to understand any of this nuance, and I'd argue it doesn't understand this by design: hurting copyright hurts open source more than it hurts big exploitative businesses.
Worth noting, most documentation for a language will generally have CC0 copyright. But it is important to copyright code snippets in documentation, otherwise you can argue that the copyright is non-permissive (wholly owned by the individual who posted it.)
The issue with KDE accepting AI generated code is that it's arguably not the right of the programmer to "submit" code produced by an AI as the copyright of the training material is questionable. It's like the inverse of white-room engineering, there's actually no way of knowing whether the code coming out of the black box is "original" or not. Additionally, it's debatable whether materials produced by an AI can even have their own copyright (under US laws, it would make sense if it wasn't applicable to copyright) which also means it cannot be licensed under most open source licenses.
They need to establish rules grounded with the understanding that AI generated code cannot be copyrighted by the user who produced it, which means it cannot be licensed under the KDE licenses as is.
That's my 2 cents. I do think them having a discussion around it is important going forward.
UGH. Remind me again where they got the money to buy all this stuff in the first place?
Just add it to the big pile of reasons to hate Microsoft. They literally can't even hold on to things that were good without turning them shitty lol.
Crazy to think it was actually that bad. I don't feel like the quality of Sonic Frontiers reflects just how make or break the series was at that point in time.
My understanding is that the battery life is pretty poor even when only streaming. 1:45 to 2 hours is the estimate I've heard.
This admittedly sounds pretty bad as it means you'll likely need to be plugged in, which kind of defeats the point of a wireless headset. I imagine there'll be some last minute attempt to eek out more battery life wins, but considering the brightness and refresh needs for VR, it might not be possible to get much more out of it.
