"Promoting more efficient transit."

You mean by having less parking there less people can even have cars there, *forcing* them to use mass transit or some other means of transit, even if they would rather have a car.

They'll all be used, in the end. Anything that has human input, to avoid model collapse.

I daresay there is a large group of those that care that actually have worthwhile posts, rather that caturd, or something.

So while the count may be low the quality of posts gone may be more significant.

>In my mind, this is unconstitutional government action.

What part of it? "Intrusion" onto their property or fixing their shit?

Since they were pursuing criminals, intrusion is normally accepted for police. They generally won't fix your stuff though. Except that this stuff was doing illegal things. Can't have that. Since it is a National Security Issue lots of things also aren't unconstitutional, like telling people you fixed it.

So what part is unconstitutional ?

>in real life it would just give those trying to game the justice system another tool to confuse and drag out criminal proceedings.

Doesn't it do both? Or are you saying there aren't shady devices (lie detectors, anyone) or algorithms out there that are just bunk?

>The system resides in cloud servers spanning multiple countries. Even if it were in a single country, residence != citizenship. Today, to get citizenship, one must usually be born from a woman who resides in the country or is a citizen of that country. Most countries don't just want random citizens "assigned" to them.

Well, let's say AI has to be incorporated then, so it hash a country of residence.

>>The bank account the AI sets up.
>Riiight, by sending it's photo ID to the bank, and providing it's Tax Id number, and signing the paperwork... none of which it can do.

What's all this about and photo ID? We use that to prove identity. I'm sure that there are ways like digital certs that can ID an AI. It can do all of that. Not sure what you think is so hard about providing a tax id number and signing paperwork. I sign all the time online with typing my signature in.

>>>* If someone sues the AI, what jurisdiction covers it?
>>The proper jurisdiction, just like any person or company.
>Ahh, the proper one! Well that resolves it!

Yes, the proper one. Just as if the AI were are person or corporation. No different. Yes, that does resolve it. Please tell me why it wouldn't.

>I can come-up with EZ answers to questions, but useful ones are more difficult.

What about my answers are incorrect? Please be specific.

* What is the legal given name of the AI?
Whatever the AI want's it to be?

* What is the AI's age and can the AI legally sign the paperwork?
Age of consent

* What country is it a citizen of?
Wherever it's system reside

* What is the mailing address for sending the paperwork?
Wherever it establishes a PO box for.

* What bank account will the AI use to remit payment? If it receives a royalty check in the mail, can it deposit that check? With what picture ID?
The bank account the AI sets up. Why couldn't it deposit a check? Why would it need a picture ID? I take a picture of my check and it is deposited.

* What is the Tax ID number of the AI so that it can pay taxes on said royalties? What country will collect the taxes?
The Tax ID number given to it by the government when the AI files for a TIN. The country the AI resides in.

* If someone sues the AI, what jurisdiction covers it?
The proper jurisdiction, just like any person or company.

* Can the AI be held liable if it lies under oath?
Yes.

* Can the AI transfer the patent upon its death? How do we know if the AI died?
Yes. When it no longer responds.

* Can the AI be placed in jail if it does not respond to a court order?
Yes.

Any other questions I can answer, I'd be happy to if they are so easy.

Why would they lie and say AI wasn't involved?

This appears to have nothing to do about the use of AI to generate patents, just that the AI can't end up holding any patents so generated.

This is ridiculous. "All science has been thought of."

However, the crypto miners could have been making money from the power that *they contracted to*. I'm sure that they should have made money by just ignoring and minting crypto? They are in this to *make money*. They had a contract for the electricity. They deserve compensation for their lost profit.

You know that Ubuntu is supposed to be a desktop distribution at heart, don't you? Easy for the user to use.

Why would you be using a desktop distribution for this? Surely there are other Linux distributions that would be more suitable? Also, I would be surprised if you couldn't turn off unattended-upgrade services if they did somehow choose Ubuntu to have the system do what they need instead of the default.

On safety critical systems, you can't just virtualize the hardware and be done with it. Getting the whole shebang certified would be a nightmare.

That would be a monstrous money pile.

They are betting big on pick axes and shovels for the AI goldrush.

>It would all hinge on if the original Carlin shows were legally purchased or not.
>A purchased video would by definition be providing permission to watch that video.

Not really. Just purchasing the show doesn't acquire any more copyright rights than you have originally. Specifically, we are already talking about the right to copy, so this argument has already been addressed.

You should just ask chatGPT how many pine nuts to put in. It will give you a recipe plainly with measurements no problem.
I guess when chatGPT starts coming with ads then the enshittification will have begun.