I feel like google glass was more bad timing, people weren't as used to everyone and their dog carrying a camera all the time back then.
One of the reasons I like AI art is that it's pretty settled law that something produced by purely "mechanical" means can't itself have copyright, since copyright requires both originality and a human author.
It seems like a reasonably compromise, the AI was created by hoovering up the commons, so anything it creates should belong to the commons. I expect a lot of lobbying in the future to try and change it though.
I've never thought about it, but why aren't there Native American restaurants the same way there are Mexican/Italian/Chinese/etc?
Weeks of silence from him about Israel's terrorism in Lebanon, but only minutes to condemn Iran's retaliation. They really do have him by the balls.
I really didn't expect this when I used them 15 years ago.
If you somehow killed him he would be replaced by someone who would be in a position of having to prove they were strong enough for the position.
Nobody wants an AI that talks like that.
Why isn't he suing Robinson for slander? The law should take care of things like this, not arbitrary rules made by billionaires.
Camouflage.
Probably about the same, you still have stuff like the intel management engine backdoor.
It's worrying, I know some people in the nootropics community are using cerebrolysin. At least it looks like he wasn't involved in the clinical trials for it (that showed some benefit).
Is there potentially some innocent, or at least less fraudulent explanation for this?
The sad thing is, facial recognition glasses would be really useful to people like me with prosopagnosia (face blindness), but I would only want them if the processing is done locally on device.