Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alec Baldwin
Almost a good reply, but Baldwin tried saying he did not pull the trigger. ( Nobody believed him. )
Didn’t follow that shit-show at all - I…don’t think I believe him either!
Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent
141–146 of 146 posts
Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
She is a former FTC Chair so she knows what she's talking about, although her approach to enforcement was more expansive than others. The FTC would investigate, likely along the lines she summarizes, build a case in writing, and refer it to the Justice Dept, which would actually prosecute the case. Not going to happen under this administration, but Khan is saying it's entirely possible that such an enforcement action…
I would point out that someone having been FTC Chair does not inherently mean that they know what they are talking about, as demonstrated by the current FTC Chair. I certainly wish for this to be a productive line of attack against the AI labs, but I'd like to read a more thorough argument showing that it would hold up in court. (It's academic anyway; we'll all be paperclip'd by the time there's a change in administr…
that's certainly fair - it doesn't necessarily follow. her specifically, being an expert before and having spent time as chair though, does tell me she is on target here.
Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
But really helping consumers is one of the biggest goals here. In fact, our existing ruling on monopoly law actually agree with me on this, in that prices being "too low" is almost never a problem, unless there is very strong reason to believe that its a short term low that will lead to long term high prices . But other than that, lower prices is almost definitionally good in our existing monopoly law interpretations…
Laws cannot define good or bad.
Ok thats fine. But the point stands that in many moral frameworks prioritizing consumers is a perfectly good goal and thats why laws were made as such.
Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laws cannot define good or bad.
Ok thats fine. But the point stands that in many moral frameworks prioritizing consumers is a perfectly good goal and thats why laws were made as such.
Which moral frameworks? Almost universally the point of economics and governance is to produce value for all people, not just those participating in a particular transaction or set of transactions.
Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok thats fine. But the point stands that in many moral frameworks prioritizing consumers is a perfectly good goal and thats why laws were made as such.
Which moral frameworks? Almost universally the point of economics and governance is to produce value for all people, not just those participating in a particular transaction or set of transactions.
> Which moral frameworks?
Well probably the moral framework that lead to courts prioritizing consumers in the first place, and for society to support that. So a pretty common moral framework that literally got baked into the law.
> Almost universally the point of economics and governance is to produce value for all people
No actually, distribution of that value is a large part of governance, and society takes action to redistribute that value all the time even at the cost of value somewhere else. And large parts of society are happy with that goal.
Such as, for example, redistributing that value to consumers that is baked into our legal systems interpretation of these laws.
Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent
#146Source: https://x.com/linamkhan/status/2099204390548639960 (seems like a single post, so you don't need to log in and see replies) I can't tell if Khan is being realistic when she says laws against “unfair or deceptive [acts]” or “unfair methods of competition” apply to AI labs. Her 2-sentence justifications aren't enough to convince me. But maybe it's sufficient for state AG's who want to start investigations.
She is a former FTC Chair so she knows what she's talking about, although her approach to enforcement was more expansive than others. The FTC would investigate, likely along the lines she summarizes, build a case in writing, and refer it to the Justice Dept, which would actually prosecute the case. Not going to happen under this administration, but Khan is saying it's entirely possible that such an enforcement action…
She isn't above demagoguery and bullshit slinging so I wouldn't treat her as infallible. Any more than the idiot with an axe to grind against Backdoor in a failed attempt to bolster a career.