Changes the torque and the application of said torque for each bolt. As in “tool head has 5° of give until in place, then in ramps torque to 5nM over half a second, and holds for 1 second and then ramps to zero over .1 seconds”, and then something different for the next bolt. Then it logs that it did this for each bolt.
The tool can also be used to measure and correct the bolts as part of an inspection phase, and log the results of that inspection.
Finally, it tracks usage of the tool and can log that it needs maintenance or isn’t working correctly even if it’s just a subtle failure.

I don’t think they work the same way, but I think they work in ways that are close enough in function that they can be treated the same for the purposes of this conversation.

Pen and pencil are “the same”, and either of those and printed paper are “basically the same”.
The relationship between a typical modern AI system and the human mind is like that between a pencil written document and a word document: entirely dissimilar in essentially every way, except for the central issue of the discussion, namely as a means to convey the written word.

Both the human mind and a modern AI take in input data, and extract relationships and correlations from that data and store those patterns in a batched fashion with other data.
Some data is stored with a lot of weight, which is why I can quote a movie at you, and the AI can produce a watermark: they’ve been used as inputs a lot. Likewise, the AI can’t perfectly recreate those watermarks and I can’t tell you every detail from the scene: only the important bits are extracted. Less important details are too intermingled with data from other sources to be extracted with high fidelity.

Yes, that’s sorta why I picked that example. It’s a symbol that’s been used in other contexts and is almost entirely associated with a specific negative use case.

If you see a guy walking around with a swastika arm band, do you really think "oh, look at that man showing pride in his Hindu beliefs”?

Actually, I think that the opposite of a bad example. If I see you flying that flag, I’m not going to assume your an enthusiast of finish WW1 aviation.

I chose the swastika specifically because some other people used the symbol at some point and had it ruined for them. That’s a thing that happens to symbols, they get associated with shitty stuff and you stop showing the symbol, convince people to drop the objectionable meaning, or accept that people will think you endorse the shitty one.

They can have whatever they want, but you’ll have to forgive people for thinking that you align with people who display the same symbols as you.

I assume anyone flying a swastika is antisemitic, when to be fair, they might just be a fan of the Nazi stance on affordable housing and infrastructure.

If you have a problem with symbols you identify with being co-opted by people you don’t, take it up with the people you disagree with who took your symbol, not the people who also disagree with them.

The question to me is how you define what the AI is doing in a way that isn’t hilariously overbroad to the point of saying “Disney can copyright the style of having big eyes and ears”, or “computers can’t analyze images”.

Any law expanding copyright protections will be 90% used by large IP holders to prevent small creators from doing anything.

What exactly should be protected that isn’t?

I mean, if they want to make it more enticing, go for it. Just leave me the option to not be enticed.

My workplace lets everyone work from home or an office as they see fit. Some people need different things to work best. Some people miss the face-to-face that they used to get in the office, so management put together monthly “we’re catering lunch, and teams are encouraged to plan whatever activities they think might work better in office for this day, but make sure it’s optional”.

So once a month I go and get some free food, and we do some face to face planning which benefits a bit from being together, and last month the team hung out and chatted for a bit after work, which was nice.

If management wants people in office, I’d much rather they try to make that happen by making being in office worth it, as opposed to telling people they have to or else. Carrot > stick.

Imagine being able to recall the important parts of a movie, it’s overall feel, and significant themes and attributes after only watching it one time.

That’s significantly closer to what current AI models do. It’s not copyright infringement that there are significant chunks of some movies that I can play back in my head precisely. First because memory being owned by someone else is a horrifying thought, and second because it’s not a distributable copy.

What’s the difference between recycling one piece at a time or en mass?

You said it yourself. You’re drawing Micky mouse in a new pose, so you’re copying Mickey mouse.

Drawing a cartoon in the style of Mickey mouse isn’t the same thing.

You can’t have a copyright on “big oversized smile, exaggerated posture, large facial features, oversized feet and hands, rounded contours and a smooth style of motion”.

There’s nothing stopping someone from licensing their art in a fashion that prohibits their use in that fashion.
No one has created that license that I know of, but there are software licenses that do similar things, so it’s hardly an unprecedented notion.

The fact of the matter is that before people didn’t think it was necessary to have specific usage licenses attached to art because no one got funny feelings from people creating derivative works from them.

Copies that were freely shared for the purpose of letting anyone look at them.

Do you think it’s copyright infringement to go to a website?

Typically, ephemeral copies that aren’t kept for a substantial period of time aren’t considered copyright violations, otherwise viewing a website would be a copyright violation for every image appearing on that site.

Downloading a freely published image to run an algorithm on it and then deleting it without distribution is basically the canonical example of ephemeral.

Keep in mind that a lot of the “bad” of today is just people noticing the bad that’s been there all along.

People still make fun colorful content, and we make more of that now than we did in the 90s.
It’s just that the hateful angry people didn’t have Internet access then, and they do now.

It wasn’t considered okay to talk about a lot of problems at the time, and it is now.

The Internet of the 90s is incompatible with billions of people using it.
Once you make Internet access less something that only a small group of relatively privileged people have access to, and less are interested in, and something that a more representative sample of the world can use and want to use, you find out that people more often prioritize sex, cats, banal updates on their friends and family, gossip, and to get it in a easy to absorb package.

So, a lot of the replies are highlighting how this is “nightmare fuel”.
I’ll try to provide insight into the “not nightmare” parts.

The proposal is for how to share this information between parties, and they call out that they’re specifically envisioning it being between the operating system and the website. This makes it browser agnostic in principle.

Most security exploits happen either because the users computer is compromised, or a sensitive resource, like a bank, can’t tell if they’re actually talking to the user.
This provides a mechanism where the website can tell that the computer it’s talking to is actually the one running the website, and not just some intermediate, and it can also tell if the end computer is compromised without having access to the computer directly.

The people who are claiming that this provides a mechanism for user tracking or leaks your browsing history to arrestors are perhaps overreacting a bit.

I work in the software security sector, specifically with device management systems that are intended to ensure that websites are only accessed by machines managed by the company, and that they meet the configuration guidelines of the company for a computer accessing their secure resources.

This is basically a generalization of already existing functionality built into Mac, windows, Android and iPhones.

Could this be used for no good? Sure. Probably will be.
But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t legitimate uses for something like this and the authors are openly evil.
This is a draft of a proposal, under discussion before preliminary conversations happen with the browser community.