But as we see with drive assistants, the person in the drivers seat (or the registered owner of the car) is responsible.
LilBobbyTables
joined 3 weeks ago
The person that asked it to do something and gave it permission to do it.
Why would the person who provides the platform be judged as controlling the users actions? When has that ever been true?
But in that analogy, the knife routinely asks you to confirm if you want to fire bullets or not.
AI does nothing without people telling it what to do, and giving it permission to do it.
Things don’t need to solve problems to be amazing and revolutionary.
I’m assuming you think the watermarks are just some hidden characters or something that you can see or remove by pasting into notepad?
What?
I’m just saying that Apple TVs are already a simple app launcher interface with basically nothing else.
The shield tv is still by far the best Android box in the market. It’s insane how it’s still supported by Nvidia, and still better than anything else out there.
The Apple TV is “decluttered” by default.
“Top economist”? Sounds like that title is self given, as this is essentially how every single startup works, until long after they’re startups. Companies like Spotify and Netflix and every other big tech company worked exactly the same.
They’re all kept alive by investors until they’ve grown to a size where they can sustain themselves. Every dollar they earn from customers is re-invested back in the company until then, and they rely on investor funding.
Read the article. No, you don’t count.
The article says the opposite of what you are saying.
It’s not at all like that, because guns and knives are different and give different results. You can buy any number of “spycam” glasses online whenever you want.
Laws already exist around using them in private settings. They also exist around using them in public settings too - you have no expectation of privacy in public, because you’re in public. You can’t stop someone taking your photo while you’re walking down the street.