Why is nobody talking about how Car Insurance is typically higher with any real colour selections? Insurance companies calculate that vehicles with certain colours (for example, Red) have a higher statistical probability of being in a collision than say... grey. This has created a downward pressure for people who would like colours in their vehicles, but would instead prefer to just pay less in car insurance since they may be aware of this aspect.
I for one don't like that car insurance companies do this, but this very likely is a huge reason why fewer people buy vehicles with colour beyond Grey/etc.
Can't speak for the US, but having built a few versions of a car insurance comparison tool for a popular Australian comparison site; colour was a factor used by a few insurers: yellow & white getting a discount; grey, black, dark green costing more. WHile red and orange are perceived as being sporty, factors such as a driver under 30 with a Nissan 300ZX, WRX or a V8 would blow out a premium far more and some insurers wouldn't even take the risk.
WAME's response is offensive. I cannot honestly believe they thought this would actually go anywhere positive. I don't know if it was covered in the article (maybe I missed it) but the Voice Actor sure didn't seem to be _consulted before_ this was made. How the fuck did they honestly think the original Voice Actor would not even raise the slightest bit of concern?
Chances are people were paid to make this thing, and some fuck-head manager saw $$$ but didn't once stop to think about liabiility $$$.
Never heard of WAME before, but I suspect they're about to get WAME'd into the dirt.
Microsoft made a coding AI based on your code, yet software engineers seems to be happy having such bots. So software engineers seems to have a different mindset about these things.
The coding bot can be used by me to make more money / work less. I dont think WAME are giving the AI voice acting bot to the original voice actor so he can put it to work making money are they ?
There are a lot of nuances based on the type of license associated with the code that was used to train copilot.
Have there been breaches of license agreements? I think so. I have no way to prove it (there may be organizations who have). Should those breaches be litigated? Yes.
However, in that same vein, this should be litigated as well.
I would love to be able to generate an open source application by using others open source code! Would be amazing if it could just collect all sources in a similar way to how one would make references/citations in an essay, and “forcing” the code to be released as open source as well. Basically build on all the open source snippets that people release to power the future.
My code there is all MIT licensed, I think it's totally fair to interpret permissive licenses as allowing AI model training. They don't train on private repos.
For people who work on GPL'd stuff sure, it's more questionable.
MIT licensed work still requires attribution, which (as far as I know) current AI models / training practices are unable to handle properly. From the MIT license text:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Copilot's unlicensed handling of people's code is one of the few areas where "you can't just ignore the license when it comes to training/reproduction" is popular around here.
People have rights to their image and likeness. Get with the law and industry kid. This is akin to photoshopping a person into scenes they didn't authorise with the intent to profit from it.
Didn't read the article, but the math they did about the R730 power draw is NOWHERE near realistic. A 1000Watt power supply unit (PSU) will only draw what is actually being used, not the full capacity 100% of the time. I have a fleet of R720's (generation before the example R730's) and their typical at-wall draw when running many VMs on them is about 150 Watts. So their math for that aspect is 100% WRONG.
And what about companies like 3M who don't inherently focus on MVP and instead significantly invest in products that are targetted for humans? Not favouring growth at all costs.
Yes, a lot of "new"/"modern" companies that have shiny balance sheets with the colour black used, and not red, follow as you attribe. But there are plenty whom do not.
I for one don't like that car insurance companies do this, but this very likely is a huge reason why fewer people buy vehicles with colour beyond Grey/etc.
reply