181–190 of 845 posts
I hate this game. I hate that Sam Altman publicly supported Trump (both financially and by showing up). Maybe I hate that he "had" to do this for the sake of his company, or maybe I hate that he _didn't_ have to do it and is a hypocrite. Maybe I just hate how easily laws can be shaped by $1M and a few nice words. Either way, I hate that it worked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>California can't legislate how they serve a customer in a different state. They would have to comply when serving California customers within the state of California, regardless of where the dc is located. I.E. Under the CCPA it doesn't matter where my data is stored, they still have to delete it upon my request. I know this is what California thinks, I just personally don't see how this isn't inter state commerce.
It is, of course, but that doesn't mean California can't regulate it; simply that federal laws take precedence. If states couldn't regulate interstate commerce taking place in their own states, they effectively couldn't regulate any commerce because court decisions have found that essentially all economic activity, even growing food for your own consumption, falls under the banner of interstate commerce.
Hey I know this one! In case anyone is interested, here's the case:
>Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview that the US AI Safety Institute – a key government group focused on AI – could act as the main point of contact between the federal government and the private sector. If companies work with the group voluntarily to review models, the government could provide them “with liability protections including preemption from state based regulations…
Deepseek already proved regulation will not be effective at maintaining a market lead. =3
>Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview that the US AI Safety Institute – a key government group focused on AI – could act as the main point of contact between the federal government and the private sector. If companies work with the group voluntarily to review models, the government could provide them “with liability protections including preemption from state based regulations…
The fact that Chris Lehane is the one involved in this should tell you all you need to know about how on the level all this is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But individuals can face serious consequences for obtaining it illegally. Can they? Who has ever faced serious consequences for pirating books in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz (Please no pedantry about how scientific papers aren't books)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aaron Swartz, cofounder of Reddit and inventor of RSS and Markdown, was hounded to death by an overzealous prosecutor for downloading articles from JSTOR, with the intent to learn from them. He was charged with over a million dollars in fines and could have faced 35 years in prison. He and Sam Altman were in the same YC class. OpenAI is doing the same thing at a larger scale, and their technology actually reproduces…
Will what OpenAI & others serve as precedent for Alexandra Elbakyan of SciHub and avenge Aaron? Cynically, I imagine it will not but I hope that it could.
This seems to be a thorny dilemma.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is they built the moat before moving into the castle.
Moats are not a problem if your liege lord teleports in and lowers the drawbridge for you.
I'm surprised to see only one comment here addressing the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms. I wonder if there is a viable path where we can facilitate some sort of economic remuneration for people who write and create visual art while not giving up the game to Chinese companies. This seems to be a thorny dilemma.