What’s so cancer about it?

Who just found that out?

Nah, it’s something you’re lucky enough to learn coincidentally or you don’t. And if you found out too late in life, you might be too stubborn to learn it at that point.

The Pixel 4 has a Snapdragon 855 which does have a neural engine, which is similar to the AI engine used in AI laptops, so you’re just completely wrong there.

Windows does advertise this feature, though. It’s the only thing that would make me even want an AI laptop.

I want video live caption, so that’s one reason.

Oh yeah, they did mention that clause. I guess you can still limit the power of the wireless router so it doesn’t penetrate too far outside the rooms, as well as using bands that is not as congrsted. That might be good enough to comply to the TOS, or it might not.

That might be one of the concern, but the TOS clearly doesn’t state that. They only prohibit against attaching multiple devices to the network. If you attach it to your desktop PC, it could be considered not on the network as long as you don’t bridge the two connections together.

An extra step that doesn’t go against their TOS, though.

You might be right, I’ve misread the point of the parent comment in the first place. I guess I just wasted both of our time, sorry about that.

Why do we need to differentiate those two use cases, anyway? It’s not like they differentiate between a single human or multiple humans consuming the content, or if there are non-humans also consuming it. Differentiating those two use cases is just another example of publishers wanting more money due to greed. I’m not sure why Lemmy is so supportive of that.

Both humans and AI consume the content, even if they do not do so in the exact same way. I don’t see the need to differentiate that. It’s not like we have any idea of the mechanism by which humans consume a content to make the differentiation in the first place.

Yeah, because you YouTube is against adblocking. It would be more surprising if they don’t.

Now answer my question why it’s funny for Linus to make such a video when he isn’t against adblocking, and how that would mean the parent comment wasn’t implying that he is against adblocking.

We taking about bubbles or are we talking about balloons? Maybe we should change to using the word balloon instead, since these economic ‘bubbles’ can also deflate slowly.

They should pay for the cheese, I’m not arguing against that, but they should be paying it the same amount as a normal human would if they want access to that cheese. No extra fees for access to copyrighted material if you want to use it to train AI vs wanting to consume it yourself.

And I didn’t miss your point. My point was that the reality is already occurring since people are already suing OpenAI for ChatGPT outputs that the people suing are generating themselves, so it’s no longer just a hypothetical. We’ll see if it is a money making machine for them or will they just waste their resources from doing that.

That’s true, but that’s not a problem unique to AI and is something most people would like more regulations for.

Why would the first comment said it is funny for Linus to make a how to adblock video if he is not implying that a Linus against adblock? Please explain how that logic works.

Only if they are selling the output. I see it as more they are selling access to the service on a server farm, since running ChatGPT is not cheap.

Yeah, because running the AI also have some cost, so you are selling the subscription to run the AI on their server, not it’s output.

I’m not sure what is the legality of selling a bee movie maker, so you’d have to research that one yourself.

It’s not really a money making machine if you lose more money running the AI on your server farm, but whatever floats your boat. Also, there are already lawsuits based on outputs created from chatgpt, so it is exactly what is already happening.

I did read it the first time, which is why I brought up the context of the first comment, which implied that Linus is against adblocking.

The comment you claimed to be lying is talking about the actual context of why Linus compared adblocking with piracy, which is about content creators and payment of their content.

I’m only calling you out for making a point that is not in the context of the actual thread, not against the proof of what you posted in the first place, so I’m not sure we’re even in disagreement here.