What is the best style electrical outlet?
Ross_audio @ Ross_audio @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 271Joined 2 yr. ago
Ross_audio @ Ross_audio @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
271
Joined
2 yr. ago
It will work either way, there is no polarity when a circuit is made.
There is polarity before a circuit is made. One wire is live, one wire is a neutral return.
For a basic heater, plugged in one way will have the heating element always live, and the other way it will only be live when it is switched on and a circuit is made.
One is definitely safer than the other.
Have they tried subliminal, liminal, and superluminal recruitment?
Unfortunately I have studied this.
So we'll just have to decide to agree to disagree and hope neither ends up on the wrong side of the law.
Like I say. Copyright is based upon damage to the copyright holder. It's quite obvious when that happens and it's hard to do enough as an individual to be worth suing.
But making a single copy without permission, without being covered by any exemptions, is copyright infringement.
Copy right. The right to copy.
You don't have it unless you pay for it.
Machines aren't culpable in law.
There is more than one human involved in creating and operating the machine.
The debate is, which humans are culpable?
The programmers, trainers, or prompters?
And someone created the AI programming too.
Then someone trained that AI.
It didn't just come out of the aether, there's a manual on how to do it.
There is literally no way to prove whether you're sentient.
Decart found that limitation.
The only definition in law is whether you have competency to be responsible. The law assumes you do as an adult unless it's proven you don't.
Given the limits of AI the court is going to assume it to be a machine. And a machine has operators, designers, and owners. Those are humans responsible for that machine.
It's perfectly legitimate to sue a company for using a copyright breaking machine.
Now rotate it 180° and put it on the wall.
Unfortunately it appears they didn't use a system which extracted CO2 from the air supply.
This is problematic with a mask vs. a chamber the CO2 concentration within the mask would have increased.
That would mean CO2 would not leave the lungs.
So the CO2 probably did build up in his blood and he experienced a suffocation sensation as if he held his breath.
We know how to kill people humanely. That was not the way this was done.
Even if someone wanted to die, this would have been an inhumane thing to do to someone.
I agree, but it is useful to ask if a human isn't allowed to do something, why is a machine?
By putting them on the same level. A human creating an output vs. an AI creating an output, it shows that an infringement has definitely taken place.
I find it helpful to explain it to people as the AI breaching copyright simply because from that angle the law can logically be applied in both scenarios.
Showing a human a piece of copyright material available to view in public isn't infringement.
Showing a generic AI a piece of copyright material available to view in public isn't infringement.
The infringing act is the production of the copy.
By law a human can decide to do that or not, they are liable.
An AI is a program which in this case is designed to have a tendency to copy and the programmer is responsible for that part. That's not necessarily infringement because the programmer doesn't feed in copyright material.
But the trainer showing an AI known to have a tendency to copy some copyright material isn't much different to someone putting that material on a photocopier.
I get many replies from people who think this isn't infringement because they believe a human is actually allowed to do it. That's the misunderstanding some have. The framing of the machine making copies and breaching copyright helps. Even if ultimately I'm saying the photocopier is breaching copyright to begin with.
Ultimately someone is responsible for this machine, and that machine is breaking copyright. The actions used to make, train, and prompt the machine lead to the outcome.
As the AI is a black box, an AI becomes a copyright infringing photocopier the moment it's fed copyright material. It is in itself an infringing work.
The answer is to train a model solely on public domain work and I'd love to play around with that and see what it produces.
This user:
"Don't worry I'm learning Power BI so I won't have to use Excel for everything soon."
Nobody can stop you.
But because our copyright laws are so overreaching you probably are breaching copyright.
It's just not worth a company suing you for the financial "damages" they've "suffered" because you drew a character instead of buying a copy from them.
Certain exceptions exist, not least "De Minimus" and education.
You can argue that you're learning to draw. Then put that drawing in a drawer and probably fine.
But's pretty clear cut in law that putting it even on your own wall is a copyright breach if you could have bought it as a poster.
The world doesn't work that way but suddenly AI doing what an individual does thousands of times, means thousands times the potential damage.
Just as if you loaded up a printing press.
De Minimus no longer applies and the actual laws will get tested in court.
Even though this isn't like a press in that each image can be different, thousands of different images breaking copyright aren't much different to printing thousands of the same image.
The copier didn't create any Intellectual property. They copied it.
Copy right. The right to copy.
It's fairly fundamental.
The person who created the cartoon in the first place.
Try painting a Disney character on the wall of a waiting room.for children.
So by that logic. I prompted you with a question. Did I create your comment?
I used you as a tool to generate language. If it was a Pulitzer winning response could I gain the plaudits and profit, or should you?
If it then turned out it was plagiarism by yourself, should I get the credit for that?
Am I liable for what you say when I have had no input into the generation of your personality and thoughts?
The creation of that image required building a machine learning model.
It required training a machine learning model.
It required prompting that machine learning model.
All 3 are required steps to produce that image and all part of its creation.
The part copyright holders will focus on is the training.
Human beings are held liable if they see and then copy an image for monetary gain.
An AI has done exactly this.
It could be argued that the most responsible and controlled element of the process. The most liable. Is the input of training data.
Either the AI model is allowed to absorb the world and create work and be held liable under the same rules as a human artist. The AI is liable.
Or the AI model is assigned no responsibility itself but should never have been given copyrighted work without a license to reproduce it.
Either way the owners have a large chunk of liability.
If I ask a human artist to produce a picture of Donald Duck, they legally can't, even though they might just break the law Disney could take them to court and win.
The same would be true of any business.
The same is true of an AI as either its own entity, or the property of a business.
Who created this image in your view then, who is liable?
Then who created this image in your view?
Copyright law is incredibly far reaching and only enforced up to a point. This is a bad thing overall.
When you actually learn what companies could do with copyright law, you realise what a mess it is.
In the UK for example you need permission from a composer to rearrange a piece of music for another ensemble. Without that permission it's illegal to write the music down. Even just the melody as a single line.
In the US it's standard practice to first write the arrangement and then ask the composer to licence it. Then you sell it and both collect and pay royalties.
If you want to arrange a piece of music in the UK by a composer with an American publisher, you essentially start by breaking the law.
This all gives massive power to corporations over individual artists. It becomes a legal fight the corporation can always win due to costs.
Corporations get the power of selective enforcement. Whenever they think they will get a profit.
AI is creating an image based on someone else's property. The difference is it's owned by a corporation.
It's not legitimate to claim the creation is solely that of the one giving the instructions. Those instructions are not in themselves creating the work.
The act of creating this work includes building the model, training the model, maintaining the model, and giving it that instruction.
So everyone involved in that process is liable for the results to differing amounts.
Ultimately the most infringing part of the process is the input of the original image in the first place.
So we now get to see if a massive corporation or two can claim an AI can be trained on and output anything publicly available (not just public domain)without infringing copyright. An individual human can't.
I suspect the work of training a model solely on public domain will be complete about the time all these cases get settled in a few years.
Then controls will be put on training data.
Then barriers to entry to AI will get higher.
Then corporations will be able to own intellectual property and AI models.
The other way this can go is AI being allowed to break copyright, which then leads to a precedent that breaks a lot of copyright and the corporations lose a lot of power and control.
The only reason we see this as a fight is because corporations are fighting each other.
If AI needs data and can't simply take it publicly from published works, the value of licensing that data becomes a value boost for the copyright holder.
The New York Times has a lot to gain.
There are explicit exceptions limited to copyright law. Education being one. Academia and research another.
All hinge into infringement the moment it becomes commercial.
AI being educated and trained isn't infringement until someone gains from published works or prevents the copyright holder from gaining from it.
This is why writers are at the forefront. Writing is the first area where AI can successfully undermine the need to read the New York Times directly. Reducing the income from the intellectual property it's been trained on.
Fused plugs still have a big advantage.
The amperage can be specific to the device.
We do mandate all circuits have RCD/GFCI now, but we're not taking away fuses in plugs.
If a lamp starts drawing too much current for its wire, it might be on a 20A breaker. It should have a 1A fuse in the plug.
Fuses on the sockets would mean either specific sockets and circuits for low, medium, and high power devices or a loss of specificity. In fact there are 5 levels, so 5 different levels to replicate with your system.
https://www.stevensonplumbing.co.uk/bs1362-fuses.html
For a short or earth the RCD trips. If more goes out on the live than returns to the neutral the RCD trips. If the current goes high but returns correctly to the neutral, the RCD does nothing, the fuse in the plug breaks.
Fuses are an inch by a quarter inch.
Fuses and plugs could be made smaller but to be honest the pins and wires need to be able to take 13A.
Most of the bulk is about the length of the pins. Making it mechanically safe so the earth connects before the live, making it difficult to accidentally pull out the wall, and making sure no live connection is contactable when partly outside the wall.
We have low power travel adapters for low power devices that fold away bits they don't need. Or separate onto pieces.
I think we're good. Plugs are still smaller than AC-DC adapters we use all the time. Calling the bulky is a bit of a stretch. They're aren't bulky, even compared to a modern phone charger.