gruez

You mean how it's always used post hoc (ie. "ah ha! the company was owned by private equity! you should've known!") or as a generic kneejerk reaction, neither of which has any rigorous criteria for what the "bad" sort of private equity is?

But that waters down the argument to the point of meaningless. For instance, did the egg shortage make the housing crisis worse, because every potential homebuyer has less money to buy a house?

>And people should be allowed to not be members of HOA.

Just like labor unions (ie. "right to work" states), right?

>I'm an Iranian---which is something you have no choice in

Weird argument. Given they're in the US, not complying with US sanctions on Iran isn't an option either.

And porkbun, a seemingly privately owned company, isn't private equity?

>this issue is rich tax used to be 70 percent.

This was basically never true because of all the exceptions and deductions you could do.

>now its optional. this isnt that hard

No, such arguments usually rely on redefining "income" to mean something else, eg. unrealized gains. Even the much maligned "borrow, lend, die" wheeze is less common than what people think.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...

>Yes, I go to school, then I get a job, then my taxes pay for the school for my neighbours kids, they get and job, their taxes pay for the school aso. But, this chain is broken if the ones benefitting from public services don't give anything in return to finance those public services.

That just depends on how you do the accounting, right? In a similar vein to how "police just exist to protect capital", it's not hard to construct a narrative how the whole point of schools and roads are to prepare workers to be corporate cogs and to transport them to work as corporate cogs. In the case of roads it'd be difficult to argue otherwise. For someone working 9-5, non-wfh, most of their road use is for getting to and from a job, in other words an activity that benefits corporations and their shareholders. On the flip side, if an amazon delivery truck uses public roads to send packages to you, is that only amazon that benefits (because $$$, obviously) or are you benefiting too?

>I don’t think anyone really objects to you being able to record video in public, but do object to you being able to secretly record video in public.

See the quotes in my other comment. It's pretty clear it's not about being "secretly" recorded.

That's... exactly how public services should work?

"The public pays to build roads. General Motors, ExxonMobil, and Amazon (delivery vans) collect the returns"

"The public pays for public schools. Shareholders (of any company that doesn't solely rely on menial labor) collect the returns"

>I do not board a plan to be discreetly recorded by a pair of glasses. It's creepy and just privacy invasive.

That's not what's under debate though.

>British Airways Warns Filming Crew With Meta Smart Glasses Could Get Your Tickets Cancelled

>The reported change builds on restrictions introduced earlier this year against photographing or filming BA employees without their consent. Livestreaming employees without permission is also prohibited.

>>“This includes filming, live streaming or taking photographs of any BA crew or other colleagues without their consent.”

Emphasis mine.

If they're doing this to protect their passengers privacy, they're doing a really good job at hiding that.

Why? Airports are probably the most surveilled places aside from casinos. Why should corporations or the establishment have a monopoly on surveillance and the footage, especially when the footage is (presumably) for the purposes of scrutinizing the corporation/establishment itself? I think the "this call is recorded for quality control purposes" principle should apply. If you're recording, I should be able to record too.

>i) it would not be weird to be tried for manslaughter;

What's the point of prosecution in this case, assuming the circumstances were known in advance? Is it just "police/prosecutors are pigs and are out to oppress people at every opportunity"?

A critical element that gets missed is civil vs criminal liability. You might not be thrown in jail if your agent went rogue, but if it runs amok and causes a bunch of damages (eg. filing a bunch of spurious lawsuits) you'll still be on the hook for monetary damages.

>What if I specifically tell it to not do anything nefarious or illegal?

Typically the avenue for lawsuits would be under "negligence" or "recklessness", so it'd be up to a judge/jury to decide what a reasonable level of care is. "specifically tell it to not do anything nefarious or illegal" isn't an airtight defense though. If you told your tesla FSD car to drive itself and not break any laws, but then it crashed into something, you'd still be liable.

>(because it’s marketed that way) then how could I be held liable?

then it becomes a product liability lawsuit where they sue you, and you sue the AI company.

Sounds like you agree with the article, but are just quibbling over what "dumb" means, interpreting it to mean raw biological brain ability rather than test results or academic achievement.

It's not "lumpy", but AI definitely made the spread (distribution) of scores wider. See the last chart from: https://infographics.economist.com/2026/20260822_WOC963/

But in this case it's actually backed by evidence. PISA scores have been edging down since the mid 2010s and took a further dip in the 2020s.

>I think there is well established law around not running a program on your computer that hacks into systems.

There is? The closest is CFAA's

>knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

but clearly that's not what applicable here.

>You forget the people who have unalive themselves because some LLM told them to do so.

Besides the obvious conversational derail (we were talking about ai hacking up till now), that case is being litigated right now.

That requires the victim to sue in court, or as some people have speculated OpenAI might have already settled with the victims in private.

>>but you wouldn't automatically be criminally liable either.

>California Civil Code

>The owner of any dog is liable for the damages ...

How are you still missing the criminal/civil distinction, when it was mentioned in my original comment AND the comment you were replying to?

That goes back to my main point about how laws around computers are quite lax so prosecuting openai is tricky. Whereas the CFAA uses terms like "intentional" and "knowingly", AML laws use terms like "willfully violating"[1]. If you read through the BoA case, what they did is far more egregious than just "not trying hard enough to prevent money laundering". They were previously cited for poor compliance, disregarded previous orders, and delayed filing required reports.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5321

>If a dog mauls someone, it’s the owner that’s responsible. This is basic common law, long established.

That's specifically not what the court case says.

>Malice is implied when the killing is proximately

>caused by “ ‘an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life,

>which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct

>endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life

https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-knoller-33726

The rest of the court case also mentions a long history of the dog being dangerous and the owner failing to restrain the dog.

>And yes you are definitely criminally liable for things your dog does.

I said "you wouldn't automatically be criminally liable either". Can you provide examples outside of gross negligence on part of the dog owner?

>Except it’s not accidental? OpenAI set a program to do a task knowing full well that it can and does (and often it seems) hack into external systems.

The agents were sandboxed (but apparently not well enough). They weren't like "hey agents here's the open internet, please hack it".

criminally liable? Of course you have to pay their medical bills, but unless there was some serious negligence on your side (eg. you let it off leash), you won't be criminally liable.

>If I train that other group, if I teach them how to hack computers and give them incentives to do so, and then I leave my computer open so they can use it for whatever purposes they chose, then I would expect to be held at fault.

Even that analogy doesn't really work:

For "dumb" things: you can "train" (ie. write) hacking tools but as long as you put a disclaimer that it's for "educational purposes only", you're in the clear, even if some baddies decide to use it.

For "smart" things: you can "train" people to hack for you, but as long as you say it's for legal purposes (eg. vulnerability research or red-teaming), you're also in the clear, even if some of your trainees go rogue.

>The agents are clearly not accidentally compromising systems

That would be argument for jailing the agent, but that's not really an option. "Jailing the closest person we can jail" also isn't a recognized legal principle. If your dog mauled someone, it'd be hard to argue that the dog didn't intend to maul that person, but you wouldn't automatically be criminally liable either.

No, the problem is twofold:

1. For openai operating agents in an unsafe manner: unlike for cars, there's no established requirement for how carefully you have to operate computers or AI agents, so you also can't easily prosecute people for not operating them carefully enough.

2. For the actual result of someone getting hacked: laws for hacking are tricky to apply for "accidental" hacks, see my other comment.

>I dunno what you mean by suggesting crimes committed using computers are ambiguous. I mean the CFAA is vague and all, but more in an overly broad sense, which in this case seems to make it even less ambiguous.

Because the CFAA specifically only includes intentional hacks:

> ... having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization ...

>... intentionally accesses a computer without authorization ...

Of course, the typical retort is that being reckless is basically the same as "intentionally", but you'd need to jump through more hoops to prove what level of care is "reasonable".