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.

It's the sound of Trump's autopen generating another crypto-bro's pardon.

Pardons have a set price of $1 million. https://thehill.com/homenews/a...

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

lost contact...after it passed behind Mars. When it reemerged from behind the planet, the spacecraft never resumed communications.

I toldja, never leave sight of Mommy! Space Ghosts eat little probes like you!

ICE probes Uranus and Myanus

For Republican voters to piss away the Constitution and states' rights. Just one fat orange turd who said nasty things and got away with it and they would burn everything in the country down.

It really shows a complete lack of any principles on the part of Republican voters. That's the problem with the right wing they have a hierarchy not a belief system let alone principles.

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.

Good lord, I promise I was sober while I wrote that... I blame the "mobile" version of this site, lol. What that was supposed to say:

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

I worked with a sociopath I'll call "Bill" who we strongly suspect deleted and sabotaged many things. Mayhem had a long history of following Bill, as we asked former colleagues to make sure we were not losing our minds. We learned to back-up and document stuff like crazy to work around it. Bill seemed to have a lot of experience covering his tracks, such as knowing which systems didn't keep logs.

Depends on how many RVs you give the Court.

Trump also uses an auto-pen, he's a hypocrite.