They can also classify it as restricted data -- like nuclear weapons technology.
Sure, there will be a court battle, but I don't think these companies want to take that chance. They'll capitulate after the lawyers realize that option is on the table.
> They can also classify it as restricted data -- like nuclear weapons technology.
Nuclear weapons technology is restricted under very specific legislative authority, where is the corresponding authority that could be selectively applied to a particular vendors AI models or services?
agreed but the current administration is pretty adept at using the slimmest margin for justification and benefiting from the fact that the legal process playing out over years is extremely detrimental to everyone but the government
The argument "we need AI because China" is principally a national security argument, but it has been used as a motte-and-bailey for commercial use of AI.
This motte-and-bailey argument is finally dead, thanks entirely to the supreme arrogance of a few AI companies that think they're going to beat the US government on this.
These nerds really have no idea who they're dealing with. The executive branch can categorize AI technology as equivalent to nuclear weapons technology.
>The executive branch can categorize AI technology as equivalent to nuclear weapons technology.
Theoretically, but this would run the risk of collapsing the US tech sector, which at this point is a significant part of the strength of the US economy, and thus making it likely that the Republicans will lose power in the next elections.
I don't view that as an additional new risk. Investors are already all-in on AI, despite being one geopolitical event away from apocalypse regarding Taiwan.
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" line is one of the most misunderstood pieces of legal dicta in US history. It comes from a case that was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Under current First Amendment law, the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting "imminent lawless action" and is "likely" to produce such action.
To illustrate how high this bar is: you can legally sell and wear a T-shirt that says "I heart killing [X group]". While many find that expression offensive or harmful, it is protected speech. This is because:
- It is not a true threat (it doesn’t target a specific individual with a credible intent to harm).
- It isn't incitement (it doesn't command a crowd to commit a crime immediately).
In the US, you don't need approval to express yourself. The default is that your speech is protected unless the government can prove it falls into a tiny handful of narrow, well-defined exceptions.
I have a close male friend in their mid-thirties that has struggled dating since I've known him (~10 years). He is attractive, dresses well, goes to the gym, eats well, has a few hobbies, and isn't emotionally stunted nor suffer from any arrested development issues. My girlfriend thinks he might be cursed since we don't have any single friends to match-make him with.
He moved to a different city a few years ago and reported more hookups, but serious dating is just as bad. I'm starting to notice him becoming tired of it all, even though he hides it quite well.
Given it's not realistic to keep moving to different cities as it's financially and socially expensive to do so. What should I suggest?
ChatGPT came into the picture long after the open source issues we’re talking about were apparent. AI companies are making it even worse but solid advocacy in the 2010s or 2000s would’ve been helpful.
I should probably ask what experience do you have writing hardware drivers for the Linux kernel, but it's pretty obvious the answer is: none. I actually burst out laughing reading your comment, it's ridiculous.
My anecdotal experience interviewing big tech engineers that used Rust reflects GP's hunch about this astonishing experience gap. Just this year, 4/4 candidates I interviewed couldn't give me the correct answer for what two bytes in base 2 represented in base 10. Not a single candidate asked me about the endianness of the system.
Now that Rust in the kernel doesn't have an "experimental" escape hatch, these motte-and-bailey arguments aren't going to work. Ultimately, I think this is a good thing for Rust in the kernel. Once all of the idiots and buffoons have been sufficiently derided and ousted from public discourse (deservedly so), we can finally begin having serious and productive technical discussions about how to make C and Rust interoperate in the kernel.
Nowhere did he argue that. What he actually argued--poorly and offensively--is that it's "pretty obvious" that bronson has no experience writing Linux hardware drivers.
This line of reasoning is genuinely stupid, it deserves to be derided and mocked.
You can draw a straight line between these "mistakes" and these people violating traffic laws in such a way that they kill other motorists abiding by all traffic laws.
By your reasoning, I can burn your house down and kill your family, and it's absolved by apologizing.
What you don't understand is suicidal empathy eventually corrects itself with extremely violent vigilantism. And when (not if) that happens, you'll be begging for the state to come in to restore order, but they will be unable to. The state has already ceded legitimacy by not performing their duties, and what you're left with are violent gangs and warlords.
Dark triad sociopaths view this as a way to cease power. What they miss is real power comes from groups of armed individuals, not from a ballot box.
> By your reasoning, I can burn your house down and kill your family, and it's absolved by apologizing.
Yes, "your drivers license doesn't expire when your work visa does" is exactly like "burning your house down and killing your family". This is a sane, logical thing to say, and reflects an expected level of adult maturity.
Not entirely sure comparing an administrative error to burning someone's house down (how do you even know they live in a house?) and killing their family lines up with the HN guidelines.
Sure, there will be a court battle, but I don't think these companies want to take that chance. They'll capitulate after the lawyers realize that option is on the table.