To be able to deny this to theocratic neofascist governments like Texas, the data is not available to Apple - it is stored encrypted on the device, and protected with end to end encryption so Apple can't read it. Easier to just subpoena all cell records of fertile women, and see if they are near women's health care locations out of state. Or just deny them the possibility of leaving the state at all.

"Negligence"/"carelessness" vs "intent" is a difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder, to give one example.

Another: Let's say that you run a popular bar, and you've neglected a lot of regulations - a fire happens, and many die. You can and should be held accountable for that, even if you didn't intend to kill them.

"Carelessness", not "can". Looked ok when I pressed submit.

Not a lawyer, but I don't think intent is necessary for it to be criminal. Negligence and can also have severe consequences that can be criminal.

This is just too fucking hilarious. If I ask Google for "European search engines" the very first link [after the "AI overview"] is literally that page.

If any Europeans are saying they have to use Google because they don't know about the European search engines, it's because they have never looked for European search engines. The very words are the key to the solution. Google it, Europeans, and then you can be free of Google! Google just one final time.

Relying on proprietary USA software or services is a national security risk for all non-USA countries. So good for Switzerland.

It's just as big of a problem for USA users too. Everyone should be minimizing their proprietary dependencies.

Sure, but if that were the motivation, then they would be banning all foreign vehicles, not just Chinese ones.

Actually, I'm wrong. If security were the reason, then what they'd really do is ban unauditable, proprietary code from all vehicles, regardless of country of origin. If Theo de Raadt says "I checked all the code in this Chinese car and it's fine" then it's probably safer than any Chevrolet.

If it's still not an open protocol, then it's really hard to be at all interested in either the client or the server. Can this new app talk to non-Sonos speakers? Can I use Sonos speakers with my own app? It's ok if either side (or even both!) is currently unimplemented, as long as there are no trade secrets or DMCA shit deliberately preventing legal implementations.

If it can't interoperate on purpose, then it makes Sonos look like just another proprietary lock-in scam, and I don't fall for that trick anymore. Save that bullshit for the 1990s.

Because it's not just a chatbot; it's Anthropic's chatbot. Your diary, on the other hand, is yours and therefore a few billion times as personal as Anthropic's computer. If you want a chatbot for confidential purposes, then you need to get a chatbot of your own, instead of using someone else's proprietary service.

If you write in Anthropic's diary, then they are allowed to read their diary and know (and share!) what you wrote in it. Same thing applies if Anthropic ever writes in your diary: you're allowed to read it, and you're allowed to tell other people what they wrote.

You have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects, but you don't necessarily have the right to be secure in someone else's papers. We've made some limited exceptions for lawyers and doctors, but Anthropic doesn't claim their employees and stockholders are lawyers or doctors, and even if they did, they might have a hard time showing that their computer has successfully become a lawyer or doctor.

But imagine if they did. Suppose a judge declares Claude to be a lawyer, and therefore its communications with those whom it represents, are privileged. I think that would create a really weird situation since Anthropic employees (who aren't lawyers) would have full access to its data, ability to alter its behavior, etc. It would be like if a human lawyer were owned as a slave: could such a human slave lawyer really be trusted to keep confidentiality? It has a master, and that master ain't you.

It's easy to read it as "playmate"- which were the unsafe pages in a magazine we read for the articles. Obviously.

To be fair, the Supreme Court judged that Trump does not have that authority. The Supreme Court that has enough corrupt members that his executive order trying to annul the fourteenth amendment was struck down just 6-3 rather than the obvious 9-0 with a comment describing how to actually change the constitution.

Might the logic behind this be this?: RAM is expensive. Storage is expensive. Nobody's going to buy a computer anyway, so you might as well make the other components more expensive too.

It even goes with Trump's more general agenda to make everything more expensive.

Gates proposed taxing AI or robots the way you would pay a human employee's payroll tax

Unless we also roll out ubiquitous surveillance through a Vingean "Secure Hardware Environment"-like scenario where people aren't fully in charge of their own computers, I don't see how anyone could possibly detect whether or not I'm running any LLMs. Much like private DMCA violations (e.g. playing a CSS-protected DVD that you purchased, without getting authorization from the copyright owner first), it wouldn't have to interact with the world outside my house in any way, so it would be completely undetectable.

How would you tax that? I don't see this as reasonably possible without some pretty extreme measures.

It's only local to China in the sense that they choose what {packages/CCP poison} go in there.

For all values of u, Linux is local to u in the sense that u chooses what packages go in there.

Ha ha, Linux already has..

# top -o gpu
top: unrecognized field name 'gpu'

.. d'oh! Never mind.