It would be nice to change the headline to "Vermont is replacing power plants with home batteries." Shorter and potentially saves a click.
7,477 karma · joined March 9, 2009
The Wake Back to Bed (WBTB) method has been especially frustrating, because I'll see my usual nothing when my eyes are closed, but then for the very briefest instant I see a dream image that immediately disappears the moment I notice it.
I wonder whether whatever makes my brain aphantasic is also responsible for switching off those almost-lucid images.
I'd love a tiny phone. I just can't see it anymore.
I'm not going to create a recipe PDF and load it on an e-reader. That's too much work. But I will happily press control-P on a recipe web page and select the eink display as the target.
That's surprising. IC cards are so universally and cheerfully accepted that I assumed they had no per-transaction costs. Compare the US, where merchants can be surly about card payments.
Suppose I have a local LLM running on my PC. I have close and personal conversations with it. It keeps a chat history. I'm later accused, falsely,* of a crime. During the process of defending myself, should the prosecutor be entitled to a copy of my LLM's conversation history that was seized pursuant to a warrant? Or allowed to interrogate my LLM, again seized while executing a search warrant?
Under current US law, the answers are probably yes. Just as an accused's diary or notebook can be seized and introduced into evidence, an LLM's internal state seems like a paper/effect/document that would be subject to search and seizure. But a conversation with a local LLM also seems more like a conversation with a spouse, therapist, or attorney. There are good public-policy reasons to treat those conversations as privileged; we want people to be able to get good advice without fear of disclosure. Shouldn't those reasons apply to LLM conversations as well?
I'm not saying LLMs should have personal rights. But I can see a case for privileges for real humans arising from conversations between real humans and LLMs. LLMs might not be human, but humans do interact with them as if they were.
*It doesn't matter, of course, whether the accusation is false. Due process means people have certain rights regardless of culpability. But I don't want readers to fixate on culpability, so in this scenario the accusation is unfounded -- let's say someone did break into a house and steal the family jewels, but a security camera identified the wrong person.
Hip and groin neuralgia started suspiciously soon after my tirzepatide weight loss. I seem to have gotten it under control after mobility exercises centered around squatting. It took almost six months to get from falling backwards to being able to squat flat-footed. Now it's a comfortable and useful stance.
My theory is the weight loss shifted my center of gravity, calling on muscles and joints that weren't ready for the load. Learning to squat helped the new version of my body relearn how to support itself.
Someone tried, as a bit of a stunt, to register a work for copyright with generative AI as the sole creator/author. That registration was rejected. This is quite different from a person using generative AI as a tool to create a work.
People have copyright in photos and videos they create, even if they used a camera. Same with images and code, even if they used an LLM.
I'm not your lawyer, but to the extent you have copyright in works you create, the fact that you used a tool doesn't diminish the copyright.
For example, there are (or maybe were) lots of cheap LED controllers that use proprietary phone apps, but if you crack them open, you find that they're ESP-8266-based, and if you can find the right locations on the PCB, you can reflash them with WLED.