Are you aware Elon bought the title of “founder of Tesla”?

He’s not invented jack shit. Dude’s a moron.

Wow, who would’ve guessed?

Ah.

Thank you.

Isn’t it the other way around? Didn’t he insist on using cameras instead of Lidar? Perhaps you just wrote that backwards on accident. Or I’m so high I’ve got it backwards, idk, we’ll see, I’m too lazy to google it rn

Did he want them faxed to him?

Yeah.

Elon bought the title of founder of Tesla. He’s not a fucking inventor, he’s a leech.

For one thing, they’re much better at googling than I am.

Fucking Tulli is always making a huge deal out of anything they manage to do.

This is one of the Finnish market places. One. And for instance I used international ones when I needed to use them, not Finnish ones. The Finnish ones are tiny as well.

I remember when they genuinely proclaimed they have ended the import of benzodiazepines because of a shipment they caught, because they also got a guy.

Ridiculous. It didn’t even impact the pricing, let alone shut down the trade lol.

Whoever thinks the drug prohibition is worth it is a genuine moron. Or just ignorant. Usually a bit of both.

This WILL help destigmatize them and help reduce cost by production at scale.

I’m not saying this won’t have any benefits. I’m saying that I don’t trust Google or the AI craze much, let alone huge corporations in general.

So I’m worried that there might be unforeseen fuckups or “savings procedures” or other ways of squeezing out profit until something breaks.

And those fuckups can easily outweigh the benefits.

If we had good governments and reliable regulation, this would be absolutely thrilling. But we don’t, do we?

For some reason this doesn’t feel like good news.

Throw the fuckers in prison already.

You’re pretending as if he’s just honest and this is just the most reasonable ways of doing things.

You’re completely ignoring the intentional misrepresentation of the capabilities of the technology. The main point of the robots is to be autonomous, which they’re not.

It’s like if I were making some waterproof product and then made a huge presentation in which I have to avoiding getting any water on the product, while pretending they’re immersed in water.

He [Elmo] referred to these as “your own personal R2D2 C3-PO,” and that in the long term, these robots would cost less than a car – specifically, ~$20k-$30k. A video also described them as an “autonomous assistant, humanoid friend” which could be used for basically any task you can think of.

Perhaps don’t market things as something they’re not?

Yum Yum Thrash, I love thrash

These hackers are stupid.

I dint understand how you have the intelligence and patience to learn enough to hack one of these, but the go with some unoriginal racist bullshit.

Could’ve actually made it fun and original.

First off, this been bothering you for a month? O.o

Secondly, I personally can’t steal a single book, popular or not.

I am arguing in good faith. The training data obviously has copyrighted works in it.

These companies are being treated differently than if you personally used copyrighted works without paying.

https://www.copyright.com/blog/heart-of-the-matter-copyright-ai-training-llms-executive-summary/

Using Copyrighted Works in LLMs LLMs use massive amounts of textual works—many of which are protected by copyright. To do this, LLMs make copies of the works they rely on, which involves copyright in several ways, such as:

Using copyright-protected material in the training datasets of LLMs without permission can result in the creation of unauthorized copies: copies generated during the training process and copies in the form of representations of the training data embedded within the LLM after training. This creates potential copyright liability.

Outputs—the material generated by AI systems like LLMs—may create copyright liability if they are the same or too similar to one of the copyrighted works used as an input unless there is an appropriate copyright exception or limitation.

I think it’s also likely that it’s very hard to amass billions unless you already have some sort of brain rot.

You’re like a bad text-bot based on some really shitty Reddit sub.

I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised to learn you’re a teenager.

Your lies about having studied international law at “law school” are beyond ridiculous.

The way you speak of international law shows you know about as much about it as a 3-year old playing kitchen does about actual cooking.

Here, again.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12

The 24th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1981 urged parties to armed conflicts in general “not to use methods and means of warfare that cannot be directed against specific military targets and whose effects cannot be limited”

Further evidence of the customary nature of the definition of indiscriminate attacks in both international and non-international armed conflicts can be found in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case, the International Court of Justice stated that the prohibition of weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets constitutes an “intransgressible” principle of customary international law. This definition of indiscriminate attacks represents an implementation of the principle of distinction and of international humanitarian law in general. Rule 12(a) is an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians (see Rule 1) and the prohibition on directing attacks against civilian objects (see Rule 7), which are applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Rule 12(b) is also an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians or against civilian objects (see Rules 1 and 7). The prohibition of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate (see Rule 71), which is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts, is based on the definition of indiscriminate attacks contained in Rule 12(b). Lastly, Rule 12© is based on the logical argument that means or methods of warfare whose effects cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law should be prohibited.

Can bombs going off in market places and other civilian locations be limited in that way? NO.

Does Israel breaking the humanitarian laws they’ve agreed to as a member of the UN mean Israel just “gets abandoned”. Hmm… how does it work in your society when someone does a crime? Are they just… “abandoned”? Or is there perhaps some sort of a system that deals justice based on the severity of the crime? (Having to write this is exactly what I mean about how ridiculous it is of you to lie that you have any training in law, let alone “law school” :D)

https://theintercept.com/2024/09/19/israel-pager-walkie-talkie-attack-lebanon-war-crimes/

Israel keeps doing crimes against humanity and you keep defending them. Like a brownshirt from the 30’s. Eww.