Dude you could literally just type any of the company's names and add the word "lawsuit" after it and see a plethora of lawsuits that were either lost or settled, and the majority of them are privacy related.
Its hard to believe just how many of you are this defensive of these companies and are just completely disingenuous, as if they give a shit about you.
I literally just typed "google lawsuit" and these came up.
lol, so reactionaries can derail the conversation with "well ackshually" as if amateur message board comments require the same level of formality as a court? I've been in enough ice-agent-murders-a-protestor threads to know to steer clear of that noise.
This regime have flagrantly violated their oaths of office, outright ignoring their Constitutional roles and instead acting in bad faith to achieve their own personal/political goals. These types of crimes aren't generally formalized and written down, which is why "high crimes and misdemeanors" is never defined out despite clearly being a thing. And as I said, the bar for conspiracy is quite low - investigation/discovery is when we find out exactly how much individual tech ceos have actively collaborated rather than merely placated.
We can save the formalities and technicalities, some of which will undoubtedly require novel precedents, for if they actually do see the inside of jail cells. But worries about how that might play out should not prevent us from demanding justice for what by all measures appears to be a concerted attack on the United States!
A flagrant violation requires clearly established jurisprudence. What is considered fair use has always been nebulous, and to the extent that there are standards on it, it's mainly through established precedence, of which there is none on AI training.
One can argue that the closest thing to an AI's training on a book is a person reading a book and remembering the details, which i'm sure you reject, but it's not prima facie unreasonable.
Five years ago this site was ready to burn you at the stake if you defended copyright laws, which clearly were only written to protect the rich and powerful, like Disney!
Now those laws are obviously there to defend the little guy against the oligarchs, and we should ready our pitchforks to march on Silicon Valley for daring to violate our precious copyright laws!!
I think HN takes issue with the hypocrisy of the matter. Copyright law was used to punish regular people for consuming illegal media, but AI tech companies are forgiven for using the same illegal methods to run a business.
Combined, their companies have broken basically every law in the book that you could when it comes to privacy and copyright.
How copyright applies to ai training hasn't been established.
Good news, Congress can change the law to be whatever society wants.
3 replies →
Which one specifically, with evidence? And if you're saying the current admin is protecting them, the acts shouldn't have been occurring previously?
Dude you could literally just type any of the company's names and add the word "lawsuit" after it and see a plethora of lawsuits that were either lost or settled, and the majority of them are privacy related.
Its hard to believe just how many of you are this defensive of these companies and are just completely disingenuous, as if they give a shit about you.
I literally just typed "google lawsuit" and these came up.
https://www.federalcellularclassaction.com/
https://www.googleassistantprivacylitigation.com/file\
https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-approves-68-million-goo...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/new-mexico-jury-finds-fa...
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/...
6 replies →
Specifically?
Stop being disingenuous, it takes a literal 2-second search to find a plethora of examples.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50141449
1 reply →
Gasp, not copyright! Quick, get the pitchforks!!
What sort of lion lives in the sea?
It would be quicker if you listed what laws you think they haven't broken. And remember, the bar for conspiracy is quite low.
Perhaps you could just provide us one law deserving prison that they have broken instead of waving off the question?
lol, so reactionaries can derail the conversation with "well ackshually" as if amateur message board comments require the same level of formality as a court? I've been in enough ice-agent-murders-a-protestor threads to know to steer clear of that noise.
This regime have flagrantly violated their oaths of office, outright ignoring their Constitutional roles and instead acting in bad faith to achieve their own personal/political goals. These types of crimes aren't generally formalized and written down, which is why "high crimes and misdemeanors" is never defined out despite clearly being a thing. And as I said, the bar for conspiracy is quite low - investigation/discovery is when we find out exactly how much individual tech ceos have actively collaborated rather than merely placated.
We can save the formalities and technicalities, some of which will undoubtedly require novel precedents, for if they actually do see the inside of jail cells. But worries about how that might play out should not prevent us from demanding justice for what by all measures appears to be a concerted attack on the United States!
7 replies →
Every AI company has flagrantly violated copyright, to begin with.
But that's not the point!
The point is that the laws are written by the oligarchs, for the oligarchs.
Laws are made to protect wealth and power, so of course the wealthy and powerful haven't "broken" them.
A flagrant violation requires clearly established jurisprudence. What is considered fair use has always been nebulous, and to the extent that there are standards on it, it's mainly through established precedence, of which there is none on AI training.
One can argue that the closest thing to an AI's training on a book is a person reading a book and remembering the details, which i'm sure you reject, but it's not prima facie unreasonable.
This is genuinely so funny to me.
Five years ago this site was ready to burn you at the stake if you defended copyright laws, which clearly were only written to protect the rich and powerful, like Disney!
Now those laws are obviously there to defend the little guy against the oligarchs, and we should ready our pitchforks to march on Silicon Valley for daring to violate our precious copyright laws!!
I think HN takes issue with the hypocrisy of the matter. Copyright law was used to punish regular people for consuming illegal media, but AI tech companies are forgiven for using the same illegal methods to run a business.
1 reply →
It’s remarkable to me the number of people on this site whose “heartfelt convictions” change with the direction of the political winds.
RICO, sexual assault of minors, treason, labor laws, drug laws, and probably a million other things.