In that case it could still end up in a situation similar to weed, where it is legal according to states but not to the federal government. Especially for those states that legalized abortion access via constitutional amendment rather than a simple law.
Compared to the US and China? Sure. Compared to North Korea, not really as much.
If what you’re referring to is behavioral problems, the more obvious explanation to me is that as kids spend less and less time being physically active, they become more restless and feel under-stimulated when they have to sit in school all day.
Yeah it is insane that such a large company that works with the military is allowed to be privately owned, it’s pure waste.
More competition for CPUs in laptops/desktops/servers is a good thing, especially if these can compete on efficiency.
The architecture being open source or not has nothing to do with security. All high performance risc-v cpu designs are proprietary. The instruction set itself is open source, but beyond that you have as much visibility into the internals of the processor as you would with an Intel one. The only thing the license impacts is that you can legally make your own risc-v processor if you want, whereas tou can’t make your own x86 processor if you want (legally).
Anything you put publicly on the internet in a well known format is likely to end up in a training set. It hasn’t been decided legally yet, but it’s very likely that training a model will fall under fair use. Commercial solutions go a step further and prevent exact 1:1 reproductions, which would likely settle any ambiguity. You can throw anti-AI licenses on it, but until it’s determined to be a violation of copyright, it is literally meaningless.
Also if you just hope to spam tab with any of the AI code generators and get good results, you’re not. That’s not how those work. Saying something like this just shows the world that you have no idea how to use the tool, not the quality of the tool itself. AI is a useful tool, it’s not a magic bullet.
I strongly disagree with this. In practice, supporting chrome does not imply supporting safari and vice versa. In particular, Safari is much, much slower about adopting new web technologies. Google basically implements support for anything they can think up, Apple waits for it become a ratified standard and then implements it only if they want to. Their JavaScript implementations are also completely different.