Little outfit called Piepeople Consulting.

Normally the agency that is most appropriate for carrying out regulation of AI commerce, the FTC, would not be under any obligation to follow an executive order. But Andrew Ferguson will almost certainly go along with whatever Trump wants.

The federal government is nearing the point of being a failed state.

I was offered FTE from Cisco and when I refused they terminated my contract. The full-time offer was a paycut with worse healthcare than I got through the contracting agency.

Put it up on Steam, just break it up into 72 500GB DLCs.

If Duke's is "the official mayo of the tailgate", then really anyone can make any sort of nonsense statements in marketing. The FTC's truth-in-advertising laws aren't really meaningful anymore, and I don't think they are applied equally to every industry (or at all).

So while the government could limit commercial speech, it also can't impose arbitrary restrictions without cause. There has to be a rationale that walks down the narrow definition that previous courts have defined. e.g. is it illegal, misleading (this is where we assume the case is), or does the government has good cause (public good, etc).

Being forced to disclose information is considered a more extreme restriction than being prohibited from stating something false. Lies aren't as easily protected as free speech as the truth, but in practice it's allowed as an opinion or if the receiver wouldn't take it literally (best in the world, top quality, etc). But compulsory speech has to have good cause and I think we'll see challenges when companies get annoyed by these new restrictions. And we do have mandatory disclosures for things like pharmaceutical ads (which shouldn't even exist). But I doubt that our courts will see AI as a threat to public good on the same scale as drugs, tobacco, and alcohol are (big mistake, IMO). And perhaps I'm cynical, but under the current regime I would bet that we'd see the courts blocking birth control ads before letting NY keep their AI disclosure laws.

The civil lawsuits will be flying though. Every time someone's shitty LLM uses the likeness of an actor's appearance or voice for some stupid ad, we can expect some lawyers to get involved. And that's regardless of whatever state laws might be around. If I were Robert De Niro or Taylor Swift, I wouldn't care if an ad says "this is AI" on it, I'd freaking sue if an ad looked like me or sounded like me.

I agree discussing solutions would be preferable. But there can be catharsis in complaining.

My mentor worked as a contractor and Microsoft didn't have a lot of cash on hand to pay him and offered to pay him half in cash and half in stock, this was back in the mid-1980's. He took the cash of course.

There is too much money at stake, and it seems like a lazy free speech argument would go over well if it made its way to SCOTUS.

But I insisted on remaining a contractor, at the time I was more into cash than into accepting hopes and dreams as payment.

My town runs on tourist dollars, it's all beaches and boardwalk and lots of seedy hotels. Unfortunately that makes recessions here pretty rough for the locals. (I'm in tech, so isolated in my little bubble)
The US economy is around $3.5T or so, a good year's tourist revenue might be $160B. I would say that 4-5% of GDP is nothing to sneeze at. That probably works out to about several million Americans that depend on tourism directly or indirectly for the bulk of their income.

As for the 1%, that they get the biggest cut of everything is unavoidable. The more money you control, the more money you can control. The snowball effect is real and out of reach for the vast majority of the middle class. Voting with your dollars puts most of us behind the eight ball. Plutocracy shouldn't be acceptable to the vast majority of us, but a significant portion of us keep voting for it anyways.

It's been my experience that there are like dozens of meetings between underlings before CEOs get in a room together.

You only need to list ones where you insulted our dear leader or took a position on Charlie "Horst Wessel" Kirk.

And stop coming over to the headquarters of our multinational companies, making business deals and acquisitions that creates some of the largest corporations in the world.

The US doesn't like money anymore, at least not as much as it likes xenophobia.

Exactly. This press release is just a convoluted way to advertise how badass their product is.