I’m just annoyed that the term AI has been co-opted now to refer to pretty much any form of machine learning. Stuff gets called AI today that wouldn’t have been considered AI even 10 years ago. I think that’s part of what’s driving peoples ridiculous expectations because they hear AI and they expect actual AI not a glorified smart fill.

Try posting a picture of Winnie the Pooh and see what that gets you.

It should be pointed out that modern LCDs use local dimming zones to only light up certain parts of the display, although that only really helps if large swaths of the image are solid black. LCDs have come a long way from the old days when they were side or backlit by CCFLs. So even LCDs might draw slightly less power for light-on-dark, although you’d probably get even more benefit by just turning down the displays brightness regardless of the color scheme.

You’re being too literal with the term copyright. Fundamentally what copyright has always been about is preventing someone else using your work for their own gain without your permission. In that respect yes, copyright is critical in the digital age. The problem is that it’s a compromise. It balances the rights of someone who has “purchased” a copyrighted work with the rights of the creator.

Generally the balance that has been struck is that as a purchaser you have the right to do anything that you want with a work except to sell a duplicate of that work. You can sell the work, so long as you no longer retain a copy of it yourself. In practice this means transferring rather than copying. How exactly that’s accomplished gets into the weeds a bit if you start splitting hairs, but what’s important here is the spirit of the thing, nobody is going to care if technically you both have a copy for some short period of time in the middle of the transfer process.

As for “copy protection” aka DRM that is and always has been complete bullshit because it is a fundamentally intractable problem. There’s exactly one way to enforce copyright and that’s the legal system, anything else is doomed to failure.

We also desperately need to prevent companies from using that monopoly to prevent older works from being available by having the copyright and not publishing the work

This is solved by limiting copyright to a short duration after which the work enters the public domain. If a company wants to squander a copyright by sitting on it for the limited time they have it that’s fine but they’re only hurting themselves. The only reason this is an issue now is because of the ridiculous century long copyright terms we currently have. If copyright was reduced to a decade you would never see this happening anymore. That said a safeguard should also be in place to prevent copyright being used as a censorship weapon by the wealthy. I think a “use it or lose it” clause that immediately enters a work into the public domain if it’s not available for some period of time (maybe a couple years) would nip any potential issues there in the bud.

Copyright isn’t a stupid concept in the digital age, if anything it’s more important than ever but it is grossly out of control and needs to be severely curtailed (along with all other IP law). Copyright needs to go back to what it was originally intended as, a short term monopoly on a creative work. Something like 10 to 20 years. The current 100+ year copyright durations are absolutely ridiculous and never should have been allowed.

How would this generated electricity be transferred to the purchaser? So I generate 1 kW of power and get one of these tokens. I put that token up for purchase. Somebody buys that token entitling them to 1 kW. Now how does that 1 kW go from me to them? If the answer is the power company, now you need to rope them into this scheme and I’m not seeing any reason at all why they would do that.