it seems really badly designed or maybe it is meant to be confusing. It does not make it clear that the two are linked together, and you have to "accept" the both together even though there is only a toggle on the "help us make the model better" item.

I don't read this as him saying it will become factory work... He is saying that the work flows will change, like lean changed factory work. This seems like a misinterpretation of the interview?

Yes, this sounds more accurate

Anyone know the technical details?

Wow that is so cool. Fractal game of life! Is this just a very specific configuration that repeats in a fractal way?

Yes! The delightful reason why this configuration can repeat within itself is that this Game of Life pattern is a machine with the rules of Game of Life built into it. It's calculating and displaying the game step-by-step. If you watch the machinery you can see the "data" flying around between cells and then the cells turning on and off.

This pattern isn't unique – you could certainly come up with infinitely many more machines in Game of Life that do the same thing. But yes, most Game of Life patterns aren't fractal like this.

Come on. Damaged global psyche? Seems a bit hyperbolic and unsupported by evidence.

The addressable market of rockets is considerably smaller than the addressable market selling ads... So there you go.

There is a growing body of evidence that high levels of engagement with social media is linked with an increase in risks for multiple types of psychological ailments.

Singling out Facebook is a tad unfair and causality still needs proving, but I don't think it can be called either hyperbolic or unsupported.

Any web search for 'social media mental health study' will provide as much evidence as one could possibly expect for that statement.

One property in a list of other properties. It is all a balance of attention.

The issue with this theory is that there is no obvious way to have both deep interoperability between apps as well as innovation.

Interoperability is a contract,and that contract will slow down product evolution and lead to worse consumer products.

Maybe it's time we decide what's better for us in the long term, and accept slower innovation?

That's certainly not true. Interoperability for basic features such as text, photos, videos, posts and comments doesn't mean apps are not free to add more features. Also, having an extendable framework will easily account for this

some form of interoperability is already happening for some of those data types (or at least starting with portability). See the Data Transfer Initiative (dti.org)

The issue is that forced interoperability will lead to platforms creating an interoperable (and less fully-featured) version of their app to suit the regulations.

I do think that interop is important, but I think it is a harder problem than most people think.

yeah, bro.

bruh

There is a wider relevance here to AI, is there not? 'prior art' could be broadly interpreted?

I doubt it, since the Warhol work here has strong similarities to another one, while text-to-image models only directly reproduce existing art when something occurs as multiple (close) duplicates in the training data. Which can be quite easily avoided, like using a vector database to filter for similar items before training.

More like, this ruling is irrelevant in the age of AI. I can take your photo, change the perspective, angle, exposure, etc, and now you'd be hard pressed to prove that I started with your photo. It's just 'transformation', but it's not simple transformation in a way you could prove a connection.