The majority of Americans own stock and most of that is investments in the S and P 500. This is probably the closest any nation has gotten to mass public ownership of the means of production. Certainly more so than explicitly communist nations in which supposed shareholders (i.e. the citizens) have no right at all to influence company decisions.
In America shareholder lawsuits and such are common even from minority holders.
As an ancient one (graduated college 1981), my use of AI is very conservative: look things up. Generate code I can read and understand in less than 30 minutes. This is working well for me, because when the AI botches the answer, I know quickly. It either works or fails fast: there's no importable function by that name, that keyword isn't in the language, that only works in a different version of the OS. I never ask it to do something I couldn't do myself in 10x the time (spent fixing typos or missing punctuation). If I ask it to do something I don't know how to do, I create tests - usually informal - to ensure that I understand what the code is doing. If the syntax is unfamiliar, I make it explain what it's doing, and then I informally test that explanation (usually toy examples at the command line). You must learn to do these things regardless of where the answers come from - the Internet, a journal, a book, a colleague. Otherwise >>when<< it fails, you will not be able to reason about the causes for the failure and how to find a correction.
My experience as well (30+ years developing software for a living).
I have tried everything from generating a complete, detailed spec using AI and then one-shot generating the code, to generating code one step at a time with me reviewing each result.
The speed is pretty much the same. But generating code one step at a time is IMHO vastly superior because I deeply understand the code and can easily fix issues that the AI get stuck trying to fix.
I personally refuse to not heavily use any revolutionary technology as it comes out - the old man who says he never touches AI because it cannot be trusted is not the vision of who I want to be! Use it heavily. Understand it. Or lest be confused by its take over and success.
I've seen copyright notices that explicitly forbid use for AI training. Would this "transformation" argument still hold in such cases?
For example:
No Generative AI Training Use
For avoidance of doubt, Author reserves the rights, and grants no rights to, reproduce and/or otherwise use the Work in any manner for purposes of training artificial intelligence or machine learning technologies to generate text, text to speech, voice, or audio including without limitation, technologies that are capable of generating works in the same style or genre as the Work, unless individual or entity obtains Author’s specific and express permission to do so. Nor does any individual or entity have the right to sublicense others to reproduce and/or otherwise use the Work in any manner for the purposes of training artificial intelligence or machine learning technologies to generate text, text to speech, voice, or audio without Author’s specific and express permission.
Only if you also manage to purchase and destroy the source material, I suppose? In Anthropics case it wouldn't have worked if they've stolen/rented the books then destroyed them, but in the judge's eyes it was legal because legally purchased -> destroyed.
What is being licensed by the End User License Agreement (EULA) is the copyright on the code and its artefacts (executable bytes, etc.) - you can't have an EULA without having the copyright to license.
You can have an eula on anything, it's a contract. You don't need copyright to enforce terms that two parties have agreed upon. The only thing copyright can do is force anyone in possession of copyrightable material to honor a eula. If you can only get software through approved channels, it's hard to avoid an eula. You would have to obtain it through the same pirated channels you have to now.
The first amendment protects from U.S. government censorship (with exceptions for national security and commission of otherwise illegal acts, such as child molestation, fraud, or yelling fire in a crowded theater). The suppression here is a civil matter in which the author signed a contract not to "disparage" and would suffer civil penalties (monetary, other negotiated constraints) for violating the contract.
I dealt with physical paper tape on only three or four occasions in the early 1980's, each time terrified of a jam or tear. It seems in this case it's a read-once operation, which is plausible. Read-many, not so much. Punch cards are orders of magnitude more reliable.
This year, the first $15,000,000 of an estate is exempt from federal taxes, so unless it is on top of a different $14,000,001 in estate net assets, the estate tax (a tax on the estate) on that $1,000,000 house is $0. [0]
Some U.S. states have an additional inheritance tax (payable by the inheritors). Those rules vary. [1]
Why? Inheritance taxes are kinda stupid anyway, you already taxed it when it went to the parents, taxing again when moving those assets to next of kin is double dipping.
I can understand step up being considered unfair but the alternative is someone inheriting their family's stuff and getting slapped with a potentially huge tax bill they don't have the cash to afford.
Well I think the idea is it wasn't already taxed in many cases. If you have assets that have greatly appreciated then that appreciation was never taxed.
Explain to me how qualified immunity is better than any ill it is supposed to address? And how is it that if you sue the government and win, then the judgement doesn't automatically award reasonable legal fees?
The ill that it's supposed to address is people hassling government officials who are just doing their jobs. Their jobs require them to do things that people don't want them to do, like making you pay taxes or go to jail for committing crimes. They are prominent targets and can easily spend their entire career fighting off complaints.
Of course that promptly shifts the potential for abuse in the other direction. Supposedly, democracy is the control over that. If they are abusing their office, you vote them out. (Or you vote out the elected official supervising them, such as a mayor or sheriff.)
It actually does work out most of the time. The cases of abuse are really few and far between. But in a country of 300 million, "few and far between" is somebody every single day, and a decent chance that it's you at some point.
That said, it should be zero, and there's good reason to think that for every offender you see there are dozens or hundreds of people complicit in allowing it. The theory I outlined above can only handle so many decades of concerted abuses before they become entrenched as part of the system. At which point it may be impossible to restore it without resetting everything to zero and starting over.
> The ill that it's supposed to address is people hassling government officials who are just doing their jobs.
How? If they're doing their jobs, then they are in the right and would be defended by their agency. If they are doing something illegal, they'd be in trouble. But that's the point!
They might be defended by their agency (though being "in the right" doesn't appear to be a pre-requisite for that anyway). But they would/could still be subject to lawsuit after lawsuit, which hardly suits the intended goal of government, does it?
Poor people already cannot afford most legal services, and (other than a very small percentage of cases brought on a volunteer or nearly-volunteer basis at the goodwill of law firms) very rarely file suit without legal fees sought in restitution. Of those that don’t, it’s understood that recouping legal fees from lower income clients is far from guaranteed due to bankruptcy risk.
Still. I understand the officers having "qualified immunity". But not the agency.
If an agency has shitty officers doing dodgy stuff, it's on the agency. The agents may be declared immune to direct litigation, but any claims and reparations should be automatically shifted to the agency.
If the agency has become corrupt, tweaking immunity isn't going to fix it. Only voters can solve that by saying clearly "no, this is not the agency we want."
If that is what the voters want, then the victim minority can only reconsider their role in the social contract.
I do not understand officers having qualified immunity. They are armed for of the government and they have much lower expectations placed on them the normal citizens.
The fact that cops can break laws, actually harm people and then make prosecution basically impossible is bonkers.
It’s a sticky issue. Without QI, it seems very plausible that many law enforcement departments would be seriously hamstrung by continual waves of legal action and thus cost taxpayers a lot more to operate effectively. Not only would many people use a court of law as a fallback from the court of public opinion, but the legal industry would support this given the lucrative monetary and reputational advantages of suing the government.
And I’m saying that as someone extremely pro-curtailment of police/TSA/CBP scope and resources, and extremely critical and aware of the law enforcement abuse and overreach epidemic. This one just doesn’t have an easy solve—not without a massive overhaul of the entire US justice system down to the roots.
Especially when the implication in the article is the police tried to delete a video from evidence -- and still ended up getting to hide behind qualified immunity.
Two separate things. Qualified immunity is just immunity from individual liability afforded to government agents when conducting government business, as long as they are conducting it properly.
It might be true, it might not. Probably more useful to say "as long as they are conducting it properly" seems to have little impact on any of cases in which such immunity has been an issue.
Have you ever looked at legal proceedings involving criminals? It’s 95% noise and 5% signal. Criminals are, in general, bad people with a lot of time on their hands, and without qualified immunity you’d totally swamp the legal system with frivolous lawsuits.
reply