dryadin

Never used LTSC myself but I understand it is not the best choice for most users: fewer updates, limited hardware support.

There's "debloat" in the product name.

Thin padding? Removable padding? Squishable padding? (Is that a word?) I assume that filing the edge leaves an ugly gap when closing the lid, so that is not ideal either.

Interesting piece. If copyright protection for code is weakened, other forms of legal protection may fill the gap. Trade secrets, for example. It is also worth noting that copyright protection for code is already significantly thinner than copyright protection for other creative works. AI may eliminate it. If this is the death of code copyright, it is not necessarily a bad thing. It could be a return to the free software ideals of the 1990s. Well, at least in some ways.

Nice initiative but I would personally prefer adding some kind of padding, which is an easier solution to the problem, not as drastic, reversible, and less controversial. Unless doing something controversial is one of the goals here, which is also fair.

If the court buys the argument that model weights are protected speech, this is a big deal. It turns the First Amendment into a shield against the application of any kind of consumer protection or anti-discrimination law to AI models. Could even apply to other forms of liability. This is just a claim right now and it is not the Supreme Court, but it may get there.

"If Colorado’s exemption succeeds, expect copycat bills nationwide."

In cases of AI-assisted plagiarism and similar issues, the interesting question is who is responsible, not in the legal sense, but in the broader context. Saying that it is all the author's fault is selling it short. What about the NYT editors? the AI model and its designers? The Guardian, if it allowed/sold its content for LLM training?

Just a quick note to say that it is not AI slop. That particular line is out of my PhD dissertation about the legal implications of VR, submitted over a decade ago. I'll take it as a compliment though, assuming you meant the piece is well researched.

It is not about the technology being cool (although I think it is). It is about its being intimately linked to human psychology, philosophy, and culture. That makes it, in my view, a very human technology. It allows us, in theory, to break out of our physical environment, bodies, and limitations.

These are good points. I don’t think the dev side was the main issue, though. If they had managed to achieve a substantial user base, developers would have adapted and found ways around the limitations, as they always do. The main issue is that the user experience is not good enough. The headset is heavy, glitchy, you bump into things, and you look awkward using it. It didn’t have to be like this, and it may still improve in the future. A very light standalone headset that works out of the box, along with something like a compact treadmill setup you can put in the corner, could change things. If enough users start using this, developers will make do with any limitations.

Values are an integral part of tech design. I think that a lot of people don't use Chrome because of Google's tracking and profiling ecosystem, even though they feel it is a good browser. I prefer to use an open-source product, even if it may not be the best, just because I support open source as an idea. That is not weak.

Frankly, I am surprised this was not shut down by their legal counsel (assuming they have one and they actually asked). The legal exposure here is significant. This could be defamation, there are publicity rights issues, copyright, and maybe even criminal liability.

Good analysis. Addresses some of the questions here.

Naturally this does not apply in every case. But the comment is fair, I updated headline to be clearer.

This reminds me of a story from the punch card era. A software company was moving offices. The movers were given a list of items to move. They asked about all the data and were told that the data has no weight. On moving day, the movers were surprised to find heavy boxes of punch cards. When they complained, the programmers told them that the data is in the holes.

Great, just a couple of really minor issues mentioned towards the end of the piece: if you stop taking GLP-1 drugs, you may experience a rebound addiction, and "prolonged use could, in theory, dampen motivational drive in some people". So basically, once you start taking these drugs, you can't stop, and they could make you a zombie. Maybe we should just stick with the original substance addictions.

It means "it's not our fault, it's the AI's, and if the judge is not too tech-savvy, he'll probably buy that".

I don't blame him. Professional writers are so afraid of being accused of producing AI slop that no one uses em dashes anymore, and people leave spelling errors just to be authentic.

Good point. When you think about it, it's the same interaction patterns we get from social media, i.e., maximizing engagement, dopamine loops, and addiction.

I doubt this will end up in court. It is not a legal matter but rather political/PR posturing on both sides.

Those ghost city images are always haunting. Interesting that at the same time, Manhattan's Billionaires' Row is a ghost town because of the opposite reasons.