Where would we deport them to?

That will just mean media is no longer produced in New York.

The trouble with black and white is sometimes you miss the magnitude of difference.

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.

USAID was horrifically corrupt

The cuts to USAID are projected to cause 14 million extra deaths - a large minority of those children - by 2030. And USAID engendered massive goodwill among its recipients

But no, by all means kill a couple million people per year and worsen living conditions (creating more migration) in order to save $23 per person, that's clearly Very Smart(TM).

And I don't know how to inform you of this, but the year is now 2025 and the Cold War and the politics therein ended nearly four decades ago. And USAID was not created "to smuggle CIA officers" (though CIA offers used every means available to them to do their work, certainly), it was created as a counterbalance to the USSR's use of similar soft power to turn the Third World to *its* side.

They can go back at any point if they don't think the conditions and salaries offered are worth the job. What matters is that they remain free to leave, with no "catches" keeping them there (inability to get return transport, inability to communicate with the outside world, misinformation, etc etc). Again, there's a debate to have over what conditions should be mandated by regulation, but the key point is that the salary offered - like happens illegally today en masse - is lower than US standards but higher than what they can get at home.

What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody is trying to make other countries poor and dangerous. People come to the US from these countries because even jobs that are tough and underpaid by US standards are vastly better than what is available at home. Creating a formal system just eliminates the worst aspects of it: the lawlessness, the sneaking across the border in often dangerous conditions (swimming across rivers, traveling through deserts), "coyotes" smuggling people in terrible conditions, and so forth. The current US system is the dumbest way you could possibly handle it: people wanting to work, US employers wanting them, the US economy benefitting from it... but still making it illegal, chaotic, dangerous, and unregulated for those involved.

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.