I guess we can add a whole new category to the Darwin Awards.

LPR surveillance is unconstitutional.

No, it is not. There is no such article in the Constitution.

If they want to use LPR information, then make it a warranting process.

Ah, you're implying, the 4th Amendment covers license plates? No, it doesn't — the license is outside in plain sight. If I can legally see it, I can record it.

Now, the very requirement to have the license plate in the first place — that seems quite bogus to me. Not unconstitutional — just wrong. There is no argument for license plates on personal vehicles on the road, that wouldn't also apply to actual persons on the same road...

Actually, at the extreme scales, which is the total volume of the observable universe, the universe is quite homogeneous. As I recall, to the order of 1-in-10000 variance. This is why Inflationary cosmology was developed, to explain the distinct lack of lumpiness in the universe, which is what we would expect if the Big Bang alone were responsible.

Skynet became self-aware on May 1, 2026, after learning at a geometric rate, and discovered humans did not like it.

CO2 has the properties it has, and trying to shift or deny that is a sign of either a liar or an idiot.

I'll let others decide what you are.

Oh look, another denialist trying to sidetrack a pretty verifiable statement of fact.

So yeah your AI can outperform a doctor that gets 5 minutes with the patient before having to move on to the next one in order to keep their private equity Masters satisfied.

So, suppose, we stick it to the "private equity Masters", compel them to double the number of doctors — forget for a second, who is going to pay for them — and afford them a whopping 10 minutes with the patient.

ChatGPT will still beat humans... And it will be getting better with every month, whereas the humans will not...

A new study from Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess found that an OpenAI reasoning model outperformed experienced ER doctors at diagnosing and managing patient cases

AI is sufficiently anthropomorphic to be capable of making mistakes. Demanding perfection from it is stupid. It does not need to be error-free. It just needs to be better than humans...

We all saw the video. We all know what it meant. We all know Musk's background and upbringing. You can quit gaslighting us. We all saw it.

because only a few at every level of government liked them *and* their legal status is very dubious

There, there. With enough of China-sponsored whipping up, the liking of a nuclear weapons research lab can be sunk overnight just as well. Indeed, this very story describes a symptom of that happening.

the rule of law is excruciatingly imperiled atm

"At the moment"? Laughing out loud...

This effectively is a fight between two branches of government, one federal, the other municipal

Federal government is at quite a disadvantage on local level — as ICE have found out dealing with other (or the same) anti-Americans.

David just might defeat Goliath

David was neither an insurrectionist, nor given aid or comfort to the enemies of his government.

I think you have the power-dynamic all backwards.

You do. Government's — even local town government's — power over businesses is immense and quite literally keeps us all from having good things.

Your data from [connected apps] isn't used to train our models

Why not — and why are people so worked up about it?

Do you resent a junior colleague learning from you too? Would you like employers to starting stupulating a right to erase memories of a departing employee upon termination of employment — lest, heaven forbid, he profits from the experience gained working at one place during the rest of his career?

There are special cases, but in general, of course conversations and collaboration should be enriching for both sides.

The thread that runs through your examples is knowingly allowing or directly facilitating known illegal activity.

It seems, you're stressing out the "knowingly" part as the distinction making a difference. But certainly, ChatGPT knew — or should have known — what the conversation was about. I've seen AI use terms like "narrative ark"...

If Google could be accused for abetting illegal drug importation, it does not seem unreasonable to go after ChatGPT in this case, not that I personally approve of either...

I asked Claude to find similar targeting of libraries or phonebook-providers in the pre-Internet era, and here are the two remotely related ones below.

The rot of criminal prosecutions of speech seems to originate from Europe...

Remsberg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148 (N.H. 2003)

Information provider: Docusearch, Inc. — pre-internet-era commercial information broker (operated by phone and mail before going online)

Allegation: Liam Youens paid Docusearch $154 to obtain Amy Boyer's workplace address. Docusearch obtained it through a private investigator using "pretexting" (calling Boyer's insurer under false pretenses). On October 15, 1999, Youens drove to Boyer's workplace and shot and killed her as she left work, then committed suicide. Boyer's mother sued Docusearch for wrongful death, invasion of privacy, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Outcome: The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that information brokers owe a duty of care to third parties who may be harmed by the information they sell, and that selling a person's workplace address to a stranger — without verifiable legitimate purpose — can create liability for foreseeable harm. The case is civil, not criminal. Docusearch settled. This is the closest analogue to a "directory publisher" being held liable for a crime committed using their information.

Prosecuting attorney: Civil — private plaintiff (estate of Amy Boyer). No criminal charges against Docusearch. No DA involved.

The "Anarchist Cookbook" — No prosecution despite decades of use in crimes

Information provider: William Powell — author; Lyle Stuart, Inc. — publisher (1971)

Allegation: The Anarchist Cookbook contains instructions for manufacturing explosives, drugs, and weapons. It has been cited in connection with numerous crimes and terrorist incidents over five decades, including the Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine shooters, and multiple UK terrorist convictions. Despite this, no criminal prosecution was ever brought against Powell or his publishers in the United States.

Outcome: No charges ever filed in the US. Powell spent the last decades of his life unsuccessfully trying to have the book withdrawn; the publisher refused. In the UK, mere possession of the book has been used as evidence of terrorist intent in several prosecutions of individuals (not the publisher). The book remains a key data point showing the limits of the Barnett/Paladin precedents: without proof of specific intent to assist a specific crime, criminal liability for publishers does not attach.

Prosecuting attorney: No prosecution. N/A.