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...

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.

It would be a problematic precedent if there were criminal liability

Here is a list of examples from the pre-AI era kindly put together for me by Claude... With the prosecuting attorneys' party-affiliations, because BeauHD felt it is important:

United States v. Google Inc. — Non-Prosecution Agreement (D.R.I. 2011)

Platform: Google (search/advertising)

Allegation: The DOJ's Office of Criminal Investigations (working with the FDA) investigated Google for knowingly allowing unlicensed Canadian online pharmacies to advertise prescription drugs and controlled substances to US consumers via its AdWords program since at least 2003. Google reportedly helped these advertisers optimize their illegal ads. The investigation was triggered when a cooperating fugitive revealed his use of AdWords to run illegal pharmaceutical sales.

Outcome: Google entered a Non-Prosecution Agreement and forfeited $500 million — one of the largest such forfeitures in US history. The lead prosecutor stated publicly that "Larry Page knew what was going on." No criminal charges were filed against individuals. Google was treated as an aider and abettor of illegal drug importation.

Prosecuting attorney: Peter F. Neronha, US Attorney, District of Rhode Island — Democrat (Obama appointee).

State of South Carolina — Criminal Threat Against Craigslist (2009)

Platform: Craigslist

Allegation: South Carolina AG Henry McMaster sent a formal letter to Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster threatening criminal prosecution under state law for knowingly allowing the site to be used to solicit prostitution, following a series of high-profile crimes linked to Craigslist's Erotic Services section (including the "Craigslist Killer" murders).

Outcome: Craigslist sued McMaster preemptively; a South Carolina federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the threatened prosecution on Section 230 grounds. No criminal charges were filed. Craigslist eventually shut down its Erotic Services section nationally in September 2010.

Prosecuting attorney: Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina — Republican.

Multistate AG Coalition Criminal Pressure Campaign Against Craigslist (2009–2010)

Platform: Craigslist

Allegation: Following McMaster's lead, attorneys general from over 40 states issued coordinated demands threatening criminal prosecution of Craigslist executives for facilitating prostitution and sex trafficking through the Erotic Services section. The pressure intensified after the "Craigslist Killer" murders of Philip Markoff.

Outcome: No criminal charges were filed against Craigslist or its executives. Craigslist closed the Adult Services section in 2010 under sustained pressure, and in 2012 Illinois AG Lisa Madigan's office and Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart continued applying pressure. The campaign showed the limits of criminal threats constrained by Section 230.

Prosecuting attorneys: Multiple state AGs of both parties — notably McMaster (Republican, SC); Richard Blumenthal (Democrat, CT); Tom Miller (Democrat, IA); Roy Cooper (Democrat, NC); Lisa Madigan (Democrat, IL). Mixed partisan coalition.

People of California v. Carl Ferrer / Backpage (California, 2016)

Platform: Backpage

Allegation: California AG Kamala Harris obtained a criminal arrest warrant for Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer on three counts of pimping and conspiracy to commit pimping, alleging the platform knowingly profited from sex trafficking.

Outcome: Ferrer was arrested in Texas. The California pimping charges were twice dismissed by a Sacramento judge who ruled Section 230 barred the state prosecution. The case was later superseded by the federal Backpage indictment.

Prosecuting attorney: Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California — Democrat.

United States v. Michael Lacey et al. / Backpage (D. Ariz. 2018)

Platform: Backpage

Allegation: Federal grand jury indicted seven Backpage executives on 93 counts including conspiracy to facilitate prostitution using an interstate facility, and multiple money laundering charges. The indictment alleged Backpage knowingly hosted and edited sex trafficking ads and stripped identifying information ("Lolita," "new to town") from ads to obscure their illegal nature.

Outcome: The FBI seized Backpage.com. CEO Carl Ferrer pleaded guilty, acknowledging most adult ads were for prostitution. The trial of remaining defendants ended in a 2021 mistrial after prosecutorial misconduct. Retrial proceedings are ongoing. This is the most fully realized criminal prosecution of a major internet platform for facilitating crime in US history.

Prosecuting attorneys: Elizabeth A. Strange, Acting US Attorney, District of Arizona — Republican (Trump appointee). Jeff Sessions, AG — Republican.

State v. Drew — Missouri State Investigation and Lori Drew (2008)

Platform: MySpace (secondary target)

Allegation: After the Megan Meier suicide, Missouri authorities investigated whether to bring criminal charges under Missouri statutes. The local DA's office in St. Charles County declined to charge Drew, finding no applicable Missouri law. The case exposed a statutory gap that prompted new cyberbullying laws nationwide. MySpace was subpoenaed and cooperated.

Outcome: No Missouri state charges filed against Drew or MySpace. Led directly to federal prosecution (see above) and to Missouri and over 40 other states enacting criminal cyberbullying statutes.

Prosecuting attorney: Jack Banas, St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney — Republican. Declined to prosecute.

After claude found the issues, humans could check and fix them

Claude can do the fixing too, just as easily, in most cases. Maybe, Mythos cannot — never tried it — but Opus or even Sonnet certainly can.

Neither of them fucked a kid, but only Donald Trump would pass a physical nowadays — not that their job requires it. And we both know it.

Button up, your Jew-hatred is showing...

they were able to pass the physical.

Oh, come on, stop harping on Joe Biden's frailty — he's been out of office for over a year now!

But you don't read the generated binaries, do you? Not even the assembly text...

I've been wondering for many years before the first traffic camera appeared, why the toll-roads aren't enforcing the speed limits automatically. The time you enter and exit the highway is recorded down to a second. The distance between these two points is known — your average speed could be computed on the spot even with the early 90-ies technology...

The polite police officers would be standing right behind the toll-booths issuing tickets without the drama of hiding in the bushes, then chasing you at highway speeds...

And, yeah, you could lower it by stopping at a rest area — but it'd still be a tremendous disincentive to speed.

I was and continue to hope, that such universal enforcement, affecting all voters, would cause the limits to go up to reasonable figures — or even be abolished completely...