I mean, it IS humorous, but it also is exactly what happened.
Reminder that this in the past this kind of thing has lead to such legal persecution that both Jonathan James aged 24, and Aaron Swartz aged 26, both committed suicide because of it.
Aaron Swartz’ crime? Downloading scholarly articles from JSTOR to distribute to the public.
Now we have multi-billion dollar corporations doing these things, but several times worse, and they’re bribing politicians and running countries!
Can’t use a computer for recreation would prob = suicide for me too
it’s class war all the way down.
lol…
LOOK LOOK OURS CAN DO IT TOO.
A lil Skynet treat couldn’t hurt anyone…
More and more lies. They must be getting desperate. Can’t wait for them to crash and burn.
Eye roll 🙄
I can’t tell what’s more redundant, the text, the emoji, or the comment altogether.
Your comment is also redundant insofar it’s pointing to an obvious redundancy. But, then, this comment of mine is also redundant insofar it’s pointing to a redundant pointing of redundancy. I can’t tell what’s more redundant, your comment, my comment, their comment or the redundant redundancy of redundancy itself, or the redundant redundancy of the redundant re…
Segmentation fault (core dumped)Smile face 🙂
Now this I can get behind
the article
Cannot argue that, carry on o7
What’s idiotic is that OpenAI broke the law, got caught, and was successful enough in turning it into a marketing stunt (aimed at investors) that other companies want to do it too.
With this precedent, all you need to do in order to get away with hacking is to change your user agent to something an AI agent uses. /s
This is why we need personal accountability by C-suites in regards to company misgivings. Yes companies are legally entities but we need like, 50% of the accountability is shared by the C-suites either as a group, or if they have it in writing for a specific thing, by a specific one, the CEO or CTO or whatever.
A person. So there’s a very real example of the personal risk to freedom or wealth (the second will hit investors more I presume) if you do this.
Plus I have a feeling that the moment it’s their ass on the line, these C-fuckers will, surprisingly, agree to do this shit less often.
But limited liability allows risk taking to occur.
The liability that is limited is that of the directors. The C-suite are fair game.
I really like this idea, but how much money do you have?
Is it less than them?
If so, get fucked
Nah. With rules like this, no one could ever do anything. I mean the pizza shop on the corner couldn’t operate. Who would risk their home (if they’re lucky enough to have one) just to not make any money running a restaurant?
Directors et cetera can be held accountable for criminal negligence with the current rules, it’s just that they rarely are, because we have a “captured state” - a government and judicial arm that’s terrified of upsetting the corporations that get them elected.
The solution IMO is disallowing corporate campaign donations, and capping personal donations. Also harsher penalties for the corporations themselves, rather than just “cost of doing business” penalties.
It’s funny, that pizza shop on the corner doesn’t benefit from liability protections. It is their ass on the line, which is why people running personally-owned places tend to actually worry about accountability.
And why, yes, you can easily lose your home and shit if your all-in restaurant place goes tits up. Maybe we need more liability protections for those without enough money, in turn we need less or none who’d have the money to pay for the damages they cause to others livelihood?
How do you realistically prevent corporate donors from being a thing when the whole government is compromised and they won’t legislate their privileges and bribes away?
The same way you introduce a law penalising the c-suite: you pretty much can’t.
As I mentioned in my comment, the US has a “captured state” meaning that governments don’t represent the interests of people, they represent the interests of corporations and capital.
That might change temporarily in a time of upheaval - like a revolution level event. Until then, you’re cooked.
funny thing is about this comment is something like 50% of resturaunts go bust within the first couple years, yet new people keep opening them.
I thought I kind of implied that?
There’s risk in any business. Being smart and working hard isn’t enough. Sometimes you just at get unlucky.
I know fediverse users hate corporations, and there’s a lot to hate, but the idea of individuals protecting themselves from those risks is a critical element of a modern economy.
Broke the law? I am not sure about that. Huggingface obviously can claim damages and sue OpenAI for it. But they also profit from the free ads. And Sam Altman gave them some nice gifts afterwards, I am pretty sure.
It’s still a felony even if you say sorry.
see you’re misinterpreting the reason they got away with it though… it looks like this whole oopsie doopsie my widdwe AI did a crimes sowwie but it’s actually just… and you’ll never guess it… ready for it? the law doesn’t apply to the rich…
Tax em and their wealth. That’ll hurt em.
U first 👉👈👀
Me first what?
To tax em
Stay away troll 🧌
