So, turns out Tesla really is going to try and get the verdict tossed by the judge due to trial and/or jury mistake rather than (or in addition) to an appeal. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426/gov.uscourts.flsd.593426.568.0.pdf Tesla Is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law (or at Least a New Trial) on Liability. For Tesla to be liable in any amount for this tragic accident, Plaintiffs were required to prove both that Tesla’s 2019 Model S was defective in some way and that the defective design or warnings caused McGee to blow through a stop sign and crash his car into an SUV that was parked well off the road when he was pushing the accelerator while fishing around for his phone. Lesnik v. Duval Ford, LLC, 185 So. 3d 577, 581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). Plaintiffs’ liability case hinges on two experts whose testimony did not meet the standards established by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Especially without their testimony, the record cannot sustain the verdict. But even with their testimony, Plaintiffs failed as a matter of law to establish that the 2019 Model S—which provided a carefully engineered system and offered extensive warnings on its breakthrough Autopilot system—was defective or caused the injuries that Plaintiffs suffered after McGee crashed into Benavides and Angulo. The Court should grant judgment as a matter of law in Tesla’s favor on liability or, at a minimum, a new trial. Edit: Also I was asking googles AI about differences between the term JMOL and what I saw and posted about earlier JNOV, and they're apparently the same thing. One used to be for before the verdict, and one after, but now it's just the same term. They're basically saying the Jury got it wrong with or without the evidence.

I imagine not, though I haven't looked into it.

I don't believe the idea of aggregating information is bad, moreso the ability to properly vet your sources yourself. I don't know what sources an AI chatbot could be pulling from. It could be a lot of sources, or it could be one source. Does it know which sources are reliable? Not really. AI has been infamous for hallucinating even with simple prompts. Being able to independently check where your info comes from is an important part of stopping the spread of misinfo. AI can't do that, and, in it's current state, I wouldn't want it to try. Convenience is a rat race of cutting corners. What is convenient isn't always what is best in the long run.

Yeah, Lemmy has a VERY large Linux user base, which means Windows discussions tend to get mocked or dismissed. But the reality is that Windows is still the dominant OS for the vast majority of users, by leaps and bounds. Linux runs the world’s infrastructure, but Windows is what the average user boots up every day. “This exploit only works on the average user’s OS. And it only works if the user clicks the “yes” button to escalate permissions, which they have been conditioned to always do without question. Obviously this isn’t an exploit to worry about.”

It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.

OpenAI has stated that its models were trained on publicly available and licensed data. There is no confirmed evidence that ChatGPT was specifically trained on copyrighted books like J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. The company has not disclosed the full details of its training data.