If you dream of building and programming your own Terminator, this one’s for you!
Build your own AI-powered robot: Hugging Face’s LeRobot tutorial is a game-changer
Hugging Face, the open-source AI powerhouse, has taken a significant step towards democratizing low-cost robotics with the release of a detailed tutorial that guides developers through the process of building and training their own AI-powered robots.
… By providing a comprehensive guide that covers everything from sourcing parts to deploying AI models, Hugging Face is empowering developers of all skill levels to experiment with cutting-edge robotics technology.
Does ‘The Donald’ understand what he is messing with?
Taylor Swift can absolutely sue Trump over the fake endorsement images he reposted. Winning a lawsuit might be harder.
Should Taylor Swift sue Donald Trump or just shake it off?
It's a dilemma that arose on Sunday, when Trump reposted — or "re-Truthed" as it's called on his Truth Social platform — images falsely showing Swift and her fans appearing to endorse the GOP presidential candidate.
"I accept!" the former president captioned the post, which included an apparently AI-generated campaign poster showing the pop star in a red, white, and blue top hat urging, "Taylor Wants You To Vote For Donald Trump."
(Related)
https://www.bespacific.com/no-fakes-a-dream-for-lawyers-a-nightmare-for-everyone-else/
NO FAKES – A Dream for Lawyers, a Nightmare for Everyone Else
EFF: “Performers and ordinary humans are increasingly concerned that they may be replaced or defamed by AI-generated imitations. We’re seeing a host of bills designed to address that concern – but every one just generates new problems. Case in point: the NO FAKES Act. We flagged numerous flaws in a “discussion draft” back in April, to no avail: the final text has been released, and it’s even worse. Under NO FAKES, any human person has the right to sue anyone who has either made, or made available, their “digital replica.” A replica is broadly defined as “a newly-created, computer generated, electronic representation of the image, voice or visual likeness” of a person. The right applies to the person themselves; anyone who has a license to use their image, voice, or likeness; and their heirs for up to 70 years after the person dies. Because it is a federal intellectual property right, Section 230 protections – a crucial liability shield for platforms and anyone else that hosts or shares user-generated content—will not apply. And that legal risk begins the moment a person gets a notice that the content is unlawful, even if they didn’t create the replica and have no way to confirm whether or not it was authorized, or have any way to verify the claim. NO FAKES thereby creates a classic “hecklers’ veto”: anyone can use a specious accusation to get speech they don’t like taken down. The bill proposes a variety of exclusions for news, satire, biopics, criticism, etc. to limit the impact on free expression, but their application is uncertain at best. For example, there’s an exemption for use of a replica for a “bona fide” news broadcast, provided that the replica is “materially relevant” to the subject of the broadcast. Will citizen journalism qualify as “bona fide”? And who decides whether the replica is “materially relevant”?
We can, therefore we must!
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/08/hacking-wireless-bicycle-shifters.html
Hacking Wireless Bicycle Shifters
This is yet another insecure Internet-of-things story, this one about wireless gear shifters for bicycles. These gear shifters are used in big-money professional bicycle races like the Tour de France, which provides an incentive to actually implement this attack.
Research paper. Another news story.
Slashdot thread.
No comments:
Post a Comment