There's a whole spectrum of things built into phone cameras these days like color correction and edge/sharpness enhancement where whether or not it's advertised as "AI" comes down to marketing.
Looking at the ONSemi datasheet for the BS170, it is very clear that the "Drain−Source Breakdown Voltage" spec only applies at "VGS = 0, ID = 100 uA DC".
Doesn't it cause problems for designers if the curves measured from actual devices look different from those shown in textbooks?
Not as much as you'd think, because (a) the measured curves are still within the stated parameters, and (b) many basic parameters vary from one part to the next (or as the same part drifts over time) even more.
Look at the values of V_GS used in the graphs: [2.34, 2.5, 2.63, 2.71 V]. They differ by 0.4 V. But the data sheet specifies V_GS(th) (the V_GS threshold needed to just start to turn on) as a range of 0.8 to 3.0 V!
A range isn't even given for the slope of the curve (g_fs). The datasheet only gives a "typical" value at a single operating point.
So the designer cannot rely on this parameter to determine the behavior of the circuit, only its general range and direction. You can't just use the bare transistor alone and expect to get an oscillator or amplifier that behaves predictably.
Any manufacturable circuit must ensure that these variations are completely dominated by negative feedback. This is why actual circuits tend to have networks of resistors and capacitors hanging off of every leg of every transistor.
Well, if it's not an advertised spec on the datasheet, and constrained in the direction you're using it, then all guarantees are off and it's on you to qualify the parts on a batch-by-batch basis.
I think that counts as "cursed" from a design-for-manufacturing perspective.
Well, only if Clone/Copy is compatible with the semantics of the API. I.e., the called function doesn't need to modify anything. No &mut params (or data members) except perhaps `&mut self` (which would refer to definitions the same file).
That's usually the case for Rust programs because the language encourages it. Are Zig programs like that?
OK, so I asked ChatGPT "How do I prevent Spotify from automatically playing every time I get in my car?"
The answer looks entirely reasonable. I can't check the Android settings, but I was able to confirm that all of the suggested iPhone and Spotify and settings exist. Most of them I had already configured that way, some I didn't know about before.
Such an inspection capability might also be used to target ads to LLMs, which would then be more likely to mention or recommend those products and services.
Your comment seems to have little to do with the article?
Don't get me wrong - I personally "trust" an LLM as a source of facts about as far as I could throw a rack of GPUs. But this article you linked takes a whole lot of words to cast LLMs as the villian for amplifying a bit of bad information originally published by a usually reliable and widely-cited source:
"In short, either Phoronix mocked up the screenshots to demonstrate what the feature could look like, or perhaps they were testing a preview snapshot for FreeBSD 15.1 which was never shipped. Either way, it looks like other blogs and reviewers picked up on this and shared the information, presenting it as a feature which would be (or was included) in FreeBSD's latest version."
If dirt-simple type operations like copy-paste yield useful improvements with even a small probability that would seem to open things up for adaptive reconfiguration and whole other classes of optimizations like genetic algorithms.
It's going to be hard to explain to future generations that the demand for computer-speakers was once such that sometimes they could even decide the language in which they spoke to the computer, and that really was a big deal back then because computers couldn't just switch back and forth like they can today.
Naming things using qualifiers like "large" has never aged well when transistors were involved.
For example, consider the term "short wave" radio which refers to wavelengths of at least 10 meters. Today's mobile communications use wavelengths 100x - 10,000x shorter.
It's just that such cases come down to technical advice that applies to a specific legal environment (certain states you mention), whereas I'm personally more interested in looking at such situations from the ethics, identity, and authenticity perspectives.