Developing technology to improve audio quality would be useless, but improving the vinyl manufacturing process to reduce cost and increase capacity would be worthwhile, as it could expand adoption.
This seems poorly argued. There's a lot of emphasis on technical minutiae, but the question is whether the way the model embeds and reproduces the features of the input images infringes on copyright. I would think that is more dependent on the capabilities and functions of the models, not the specific mechanism of implementation.
Also, the Jevon's paradox bit is a tangent. AI image tools may become widespread, and their use may expand the art market, benefitting artists who make use of them. That is not a relevant point, because the lawsuit is not about the legality of image-generating neural networks; It is about whether using an unlicensed image to train such a model infringes on its copyright. If it was found that it does, then AI art could still transform the art market; All that would change would be that images would need to licensed for training.
That's worse. If companies are unable to adjust salaries to match increases in overall costs without fulfilling their primary purpose, then it suggests that the entire economic system is dysfunctional.
If 'Oumuamua is a probe, it appears that it would be a fairly simple one. To a sufficiently advanced civilisation, it would probably be relatively low-cost. If an alien civilisation has a reasonable degree of curiosity, sending a cheap probe to examine another star system is likely worthwhile.
Swift only uses reference counting when working with objects; Structs are optimised using copy-on-write. There's currently work on implementing move and ownership semantics, similar to Rust, but opt-in rather than by default.
I think this is probably two far to one side. It is true that naming something purely descriptively may lead to misconceptions as its function evolves, but a "cute" name doesn't do anything to inform someone what it is. I would argue that best name has some semantic connection to the function, but is also somewhat abstracted; This allows it to be informative while accommodating evolution.
Every system has required most people to do work, but the character of work in the modern era is qualitatively different from the typical character of work throughout history.
I'm actually saying that I don't think having a debate about the nature of the Russian government on the internet would be a productive use of my time.
I think our analyses of the Russian state are based on such fundamentally different premises that we will never come to any meaningful agreement, and further discussion is pointless.
Yes, but doing that by undermining nuclear is a poor strategic move. It would leave Russia with no fallback strategy in the case that Europe did cease fossil fuels imports, and would undermine export of nuclear technology to other regions.
I find this dismissive. The majority of people who desire creative fulfilment can't do that as a primary occupation, but it's still a perfectly reasonable desire. Our society should provide more opportunity for creative fulfilment outside of the culture industry, such as by reducing work hours and creating more outlets for amateur and semi-professional performance, such as community theatre.