Maybe I'm just an old man yelling at the clouds, but I always believed people should be responsible for their own choices. It seems nowadays there is always someone else responsible for your bad choices. I get it, most humans don't have the mental capacity to make their own choices. So let's take away the freedom to make choices from those humans. Everyone is told by their government what they can and cannot do, what sites they can visit, how much time they are allowed to spend on each site and cumulative time soo, with appropriate enforcement of course (you circumvent access control and watch too much TikTok, you get punished with zero access to social media for some period of time, you violate that, solitary confinement in a hole for you). Anyone who wants free choices, should pass some mental competency tests, and then sign-off that they will not try to make other people or companies responsible for their choices. And yea, that includes scrolling through your social media while driving - can't blame the internet for you causing an accident.

It seems western society wants to have their cake and eat it too - everyone wants freedom to choose to do what they want with their time, but at the same time they want someone else, hopefully with deep pockets, to be responsible for their bad choices. *sigh* Perhaps that the signup EULA for all the social media needs to include a competency test, signing away right to sue for bad choices, and acknowledgement that if you cheat on that test, you will owe 3x any compensation you win by suing the company for your bad choices. So sue social media company for a million and win, you owe them three million as per EULA you agreed to.

I grew up in a system where this was common even in elementary school. Sure, on any day, only one, two or perhaps three students were picked to answer questions, but in the end, the teacher had to make sure that by the end of the year, everyone was asked to the black board X times, as this "individual pop quiz at the blackboard" was a required part of EVERYONE's grade. There were lazy teachers who literally picked the next "victims" in alphabetical order, so if you were asked on Monday, you were probably good for 2 weeks, and you could generally predict when you'll be asked to the blackboard. The better teachers randomized it more, so most students stayed prepared every day. If you weren't called to the blackboard for a while, you knew you had a few in the row coming, as the curriculum required X times for EACH student.

Your point 1 seems contradictory. Most people want to have learned, but they are unwilling to learn? It would be like saying someone want to have ran a marathon, but are unwilling to get off the couch. Anyone who says they want to do something, but is unwilling to do anything towards that goal, is just lying to people and perhaps themselves - they just want others to believe that they have ambitions which they don't actually posses. A very common deathbed "missed life dream" reported by surveys is "I wish I had traveled around the world", and yet when asked a follow up question "did you ever inquire what it would take to travel around the world", most people say "never". Perhaps your point number one should say "Most people want to be given the credit by others for having learned, without actually learning anything". Those who actually want to learn, seek out knowledge.

As for your point 2 and 3, submitting homework doesn't mean you learned anything. Even memorizing a bunch of answers doesn't mean you learned anything, as you have less skill than a non-AI internet search. Memorizing a poem doesn't make you a poet.

As for your point #4, why bother? Just take the student's money and give them a degree. Having submitted a bunch of busy-work homework doesn't really change anything for the student. If someone is not willing to learn, making them do homework is not going make any difference - it just floods the job market with useless candidates.

I wasn't posing a hypothetical, that is how it in fact worked at my alma mater Engineering faculty for many, many years. Perhaps it was a reason why companies like Microsoft had permanent recruiting offices on campus and graduates had no problems whatsoever finding jobs.

In the western culture today, if a professor tried this, they'd be fired for causing "severe mental health harm" to the snowflake generation. Check out this example: https://cbsaustin.com/news/nat...

All of the engineering programs in my school were not allowed to count homework (or lecture or tutorial attendance) towards the final grade, with couple of exceptions in the very first term. Only term projects and exams counted towards the final grade, with an added stipulation that final exam must be worth at least 50% of your grade, and you must pass it (get >50%) or else you fail the class. This worked great. You could never do homework if you wanted, or do it and TA's would grade it for you, as a feedback for the student to help them assess their learning gaps. If you wanted to copy homework from someone else - no problem, copy away. If we had AI back then, it would have been equally pointless to submit AI generated homework.

Degrees should not be about having completed assigned work, but rather having learned the required material, and hopefully learning how to learn on your own. Sadly somewhere along the way some committees at various post secondary education institutions decided otherwise, which probably explains the low quality of a lot of new-grads I've been encountering in interviews lately, and the fact that they all seem to have graduated with 4.0 GPA (or higher, bonus points for bonus homework???).

I suspect the college officials wanted to pacify the students but not actually do anything about this. Simple things to do could be for example install an electric meter and inform flock the camera energy usage will be billed to Flock at $1M per kWh - that alone would have them pull the cameras in record time. Additionally, cover the cameras completely, they may be owned by Flock, but it's university property so they can put whatever they want around the camera. Lots of ways a property owner can effectively render the Flock cameras useless, and yet, none of this happened. So, either very incompetent college officials, or (more likely) virtue signaling college officials attempting to placate their student base.

Any household accepting the $10K, what are they agreeing to do or not do?

Are you saying that if I unleash an AI, willing to spend multi-million dollars in tokens and giving AI access to my money, with a simple instruction "increase my net worth as much as possible", I would not be at all criminally liable if said AI decided to hire hitmen using my money to eliminate people who stand in the way to me becoming a billionaire, like leaders and key employees of competing businesses? Wow, that would be great for any organized crime leaders, "please take care of this situation" is the only prompt, they are not liable to for any bloodshed, according to you. Am I understanding you correctly?

I don't get it either, If some curious scientist builds a bomb in their house, and it accidentally goes off taking out the entire block, that scientist would be held liable (if they survived), no? If someone sets up an automated machine gun on their laws to shoot rabbits eating the garden, if that machine gun kills the neighbor, the person who setup the machine gun is liable, no? How is Open AI (or anyone else) unleashing autonomous software with internet access not liable for what that software does?

Why? They agreed to a meaningless gesture. Nothing of substance changes of course, but Trump declares victory, can tell everyone who will listen that they caved to his will. End of story, nothing more to see here.

Simply ask the police if it is valid to call them every time you know you are being watched and recorded. If they say it's ok, start dialing 911 every time you pass a Flock camera. Seems logical.

Futile, at best temporary solution. It would be like a cooks' union demanding that nobody cook/microwave food at home, instead always buy food from a restaurant, or at the very least force grocery stores to raise prices so that home cooking at home is more expensive (e.g. frozen TV dinner minimum price $20).

The lawyer in question here claimed he didn't know that AI can hallucinate. What better way to have the message spread than make an example out of him and any other lawyers doing the same thing? Humans learn best on extreme examples, so disbar the lawyer and make them pay for a retrial including a replacement attorney of their client's choice (which I'm sure will be the top firm in the country), and such a story will very quickly spread through the attorney community, therefore making all lawyers aware of the severe consequences.

Sometimes your only purpose in life may be to be a warning to others!

That would require new laws. Flock itself could easily force this by including in their contract something like $1M fee for unjustified search, with the money going to a fund to defend anyone unfairly accused with the help of their technology (yes, you can tie the payout to winning the case, but I'm sure there will be attorneys willing to take the case contingent on a win if they can charge $1,000 per hour). Any cop who racks up a few million dollar bill to their department will be promptly dispatched from their position, and likely charged with theft of services. Such high liability would also force the departments to oversee their own officers to avoid multi-million dollar bills every month.