FWIW, in Walters v OpenAI, a judge rejected that argument made in OpenAI's motion to dismiss [0]. The case ended up being ruled on different merits though (namely, that the user knew the statements were a hallucination so there was no defamation).
> First, Riehl did not and could not reasonably read ChatGPT’s output as defamatory. By its very nature, AI-generated content is probabilistic and not always factual, and there is near universal consensus that responsible use of AI includes fact-checking prompted outputs before using or sharing them. OpenAI clearly and consistently conveys these limitations to its users. Immediately below the text box where users enter prompts, OpenAI warns: “ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts.” Before using ChatGPT, users agree that ChatGPT is a tool to generate “draft language,” and that they must verify, revise, and “take ultimate responsibility for the content being published.” And upon logging into ChatGPT, users are again warned “the system may occasionally generate misleading or incorrect information and produce offensive content. It is not intended to give advice.”
Separately, it's broadly correct that there is no Section 230 argument to be made. "Everyone" knows that Section 230 doesn't apply to this. I can't find anyone making any legal arguments that it would.
What are the practical, legitimate use cases for buying domains at scale? I really can't think of a single one. I can however think of quite a few nefarious ones.
I feel compelled to point out that (a)ether was the simplest answer until we confirmed that space is a vacuum and that light can travel in the absence of a medium.
Abandoning aether was NOT a "simple" answer. One you abandon aether, all manner of weirdness suddenly pops in.
Light being the same speed irrespective of observer is weird. Velocity dilating length and time is weird. Not having a preferential observation point is weird. Not needing a medium for transmission is weird. Not being able to agree on simultaneity is weird. etc.
Aether wasn't just something that a bunch of dullards clung to. You have to abandon some very long held common-sense understanding when you give it up.
aether was not the simplest explanation since it was disproved by Michelson-Morley experiment. Nothing as of now yet has disproved Dark matter as thoroughly.
Aether: observations show lack of aether so we update the theory that makes aether unnecessary.
Dark matter: observations show lack of observable matter so we keep hunting for decades locating it. The aether analogue would have been to continue to look for dark aether. Dark matter is more like god of gaps. We can 'darkify' any theory that does not fit empirical evidence.
It's hard to tell now which leans more towards the more correct theory.
You are of course very welcome to propose this supposed better model, but please do some due diligence and learn to roughly understand the current flawed models firsts.
For example "angry gods" was never a simple theory, one needs only to read some fan fiction to understand that theology gets complicated fast. Instead "angry gods" is a simplified summary of a very complicated theory about metaphysical hierarchy, creation, agency, the meaning of divinity, and cause and effect, etc etc.
Simplest in this sense does also imply predictability for Dark matter, which cannot be said for angry gods. Angry gods is anything but a simple theory.
> I've worked in the aerospace industry for the past 8 years, and for most of that time I felt like I could confidently say that RF engineering felt like it was a quiet, non evolving field.
Not an EE myself but honestly baffled how the author got that impression with the huge expansion of RF engineering in the consumer space - particularly with 3/4/5G/LTE networks and 802.1x. Maybe this is just an artifact of working on building weapons (i.e. defense) and being in the US?
Isn't the issue that this kind of RF is a lot like designing CPUs? There aren't many economically viable products that don't just use a COTS highly integrated circuit, so there aren't that many full on design jobs to go along with all the usage.
The product work is higher level system packaging, such as antennas and application-level manipulation of the whole RF block. But since so much is digital now, that is more software/computer architecture work rather than RF. The COTS RF circuit itself may have standardized serial or even packet interfaces to the rest of the product.
My point was that the examples above like WiFi and 5G are solved with highly integrated COTS modules, not small players designing their own radios.
The fact that there is a large market for end-user products does not translate into lots of design teams in a global sense. Much like there are lots of computer use cases but not that many CPU design teams you can really hire into.
> Not an EE myself but honestly baffled how the author got that impression with the huge expansion of RF engineering in the consumer space -
Lots of RF devices doesn't actually mean much RF engineering.
If you want 5G connectivity almost everyone buys an integrated module. Chip, antenna, and certifications included. No serious RF engineering required, no RF engineer in the building.
Those modules designers would be purchasing their chip from one of a few companies, like Qualcomm or MediaTek. Even then most of the work isn't RF engineering, it's stitching together a product and grinding through the certifications.
Much of the innovation is done away from the consumer space where certifications are less constraining.
Theres multiple duelling companies just in the class license antenna space. Like not even emitters, just designing compatible antennas for other peoples telco products.
Theres the whole thing where all the wigig chips that dell binned got upcycled into a companies flagship rf product.
Cambium v Ubiquiti has been an ongoing contest. Add Mikrotik in for good measure.
RF Elements is always trying to sell me something new.
Aviat has bought out NEC's famous flagship RF line, at least in terms of US distribution.
Was it? My memory is that there were GPS watches (e.g. Garmin) before GPS became common in phones. Wasn't the miniaturization already there by the time phones started integrating GPS?
It's all about power -- the computation required for processing the signal in the presence of noise, multi path fading etc. The RF part is not the limitation.
3/4/5G/LTE networks and 802.1x predate their 8 years in aerospace. I worked on some of those 25 years ago. If you're not an EE, maybe you also didn't consider the lead time of working on HW to its adoption.
Radar improvements have also propagated to consumer fields. You can buy a mmWave presence sensor for smart home purposes for ~$40 on Amazon, and the raw sensors for $2-4 in bulk from Aliexpress. I remember seeing tech demos of mmWave in college used for imaging humans through tent fabric and dust storms, and now they're cheap enough you could put one in every room of your house.
I agree with the author, certainly 5 years ago most things looked like a "solved problem". Huawei gave the telco equipment makers a run for their money with some interesting applications of SDR, but incumbents preferred trade barriers and export restrictions to competition. Even 5G was more of an optimisation of LTE than a revolution. Baseband over fibre is the only major innovation in that period which I can think of.
It’s a big market but theres only a handful of use cases and R&D requirements, compared to military where the use cases and niche requirements are still continually evolving.
Mil systems have severely constrained supply chain limitations too, while consumer vehicle systems can comfortably be produced in their millions from China.
reply