And then there is this idiocy, again.

The raison d'être of public sector unions is they have far, far fewer available recourses for violations of the the law by government. Any type of whistleblower protections amount to naught unless there is actual teeth to enforce them. Unions may be an imperfect vehicle here, but no one has suggested another means to cajole government to follow the damn law, and public sector unions have proven time and time again to be the first line of defense against certain types of corruption.

My take on unions is by the time employees are pissed enough to overcome the inertia to form one, the business is already in decline and the damage is done. There is typically a fair amount of abuse that proceeded the formation of a union, so employers only have themselves to blame.

And after that, you can anticipate a fair amount of antagonization by way of the union for past abuses. There is some power for power's sake to be sure, but the difference between a destructive and approachable union is management.

Get out if can, otherwise there will be antagonism on both sides.

pIraQSIS?

Dunno.

While that certainly is a market, I'd like to think much of the doomscrolling is actually looking for signs of life amidst the crud.

Bland engagement can be had anywhere, and short of reinforcing uniformity of opinions, why bother?

But the most puerile takes are often the most popular, so maybe it is parroting just to gain attention?

Probably related to not having AI cash in of the most trusted profession for over two decades and not wanting any misrepresentations with that.

Medical abbreviations are HIGHLY regulated so there is no miscommunication. AI presenting abbreviations as if it understands the context of what is conveyed medically is going beyond giving a false impression and into possibly life threatening.

There is a world of difference from freeloading (appropriating someone else's work for personal use) and repackaging someone else's work to make a profit (AI companies take note). Me making my own Mickey Mouse t-shirt is perfectly appropriate. Me selling them is a different animal entirely.

The point is that it is not making technology available to everyone, but more akin to the tragedy of the commons. Littering in the local park because you are free to do so eventually means the commons won't be worth having.

Ya, at the end of the day, parts availability eventually renders most cars to the bin.

I've wondered if I could justify an non-obnoxious classic car, like an old Beetle or Porsche. Maybe a small block Chevy. Parts for restoration should be more accessible. Plus classic car.

The EEOC and NLRB were impotent prior to Jan. 2025 and are even worse now (the NLRB can't even rule because they lack a quorum).

Amazon is following the letter of the law, which means they can grind this down until people quit. Accommodation is suppose to be a "good faith" effort between employer and employee. It seems neither is approaching this in that spirit.

Uh-huh.

Take something like music. There are specific licenses for specific uses. We've already have a legal framework with regards to sampling. Imagine my dismay how none of these people spoke up then, but now cost of sampling and the morass of licensing is an issue.

But tell me, is any of the software copyrighted?

Oh...

AI firms won't pay to respect copyright

On they one hand, I can only hope this leads to revisiting the insanity of copyright law.

On the other, fuck them for double dealing with regards to what ownership actually means ("I'm alright, Jack.").

Maybe...

One of the benefits of "top" talent is influence that rubs off in other domains. 80/20 rule and all that.

On the other hand, overt specialization is suicide (which also seems to come with top talent).

The difficulty is (always) what excels in a particular environment varies dramatically. One persons' genius is anothers' prima donna.

for me is you need a coherent framework not only for current circumstances but a future technologies. And that is not just limited to corporations. Your local busybody with a swarm of drones eyeing the neighborhood is just as bad.

As we have now, regulation cannot hope to keep pace with technological development. And government contracting the private sector (or foreign countries) as an end-around the law will not be put back in the bottle.

The best I think you can do is HEAVY penalties for database breaches and the like (including full financial liability/prison). Make data collection a costly liability instead of a cash-cow. Use the same incentives that fuel the current boom to crush it.

Hmm...

Folding@home has already a list of accomplishments for nominal costs.

Further, picking specifically a Nobel prize winning AI as demonstrative of cost, when Forbes places the total spending for AI next year alone at a quarter trillion is suspect to say the least.

That's a lot of research dollars, but hey you accomplished what was already being done for free and with no restriction on copyright. I'm positive Alphabet spent that money strictly out of benevolence and will do the same.

But as we aren't discussing them but LabGenius LabGenius (mind who those investors are).

The difficulty here is the amount spent on AI and the like vs. other research- which will have the most efficacy?

The promises of AI are far and wide, as if to justify spending even more at the expense of other things.

Yes, new tools are helpful in many disciplines, but that's not what is being sold here.

More an indictment of law enforcement "intelligence".

There is a boogie-man around every corner to justify stricter and stricter laws, and always more farcical threats that somehow omit very present threats (such as foreign policy).

I've seen police task force materials on everything from Dungeons & Dragons to Insane Clown Posse to Satanism, and seeming secret societies form within law enforcement (Vampire Hunter 2000 was just wild. And now we have the thin blue line.).

It's brand of cultural enforcement dressed as benevolent concern, and making stuff up and fearmongering is far easier than proper investigation.