The bill only calls out the use of nonpublic competitor data in setting prices. It is basically just saying that you cannot collude with competitors (already illegal) just because you are doing it indirectly through a 3rd party. If Walmart and Target both paid a consultant who received nonpublic supplier pricing data from both companies and then did supplier pricing negotiations for both companies, that would already be illegal. But the pricing they give to customers is public information, so that's not illegal.

As long as ChatGPT isn't collecting non-public pricing information from landlords, this would be fine. The Act specifically calls out the use of nonpublic competitor data.

No, the AI was also artificially increasing the rent because a large enough number of landlords were using their tool. If rent should have been $2000 in a competitive market, it might suggest $2100 instead. As long as landlords know most of their competitors are also using the software, they can feel confident that not enough people are going to undercut them on price. That is what caused the rent prices to go up more than the market would have otherwise demanded.

They need to do more than just not use it. They need to create an alternative distribution method for their music. And ensure this new network doesn't devolve into something that looks just like Spotify in the future. It is a pretty good goal, but it certainly won't be easy.

This one is pretty easy. Music would become a hobby, not a profession. Either treat your profession as a profession, or you aren't going to make much money doing it.

Musicians are free to create some kind of "employee-owned" distribution network for their music. But that network would still need to compete in our capitalistic economy. I think it's a great idea and would love for it to happen in music and plenty of other industries. We just shouldn't ignore that to be successful it needs to be run like any other business to be successful. Only the way in which it distributes its profits would change.

It's likely the truth is they only have reasonably complete and valid records for about 20 million people. The rest are duplicates, incomplete, or inaccurate.

They are large companies, but TransUnion was the only financial services or healthcare company I noticed in the list of companies breached. Most companies outside of those sectors do a horrible job with security. I work at a healthcare company with 15 Salesforce orgs, and we would have been well protected from this even if an admin was tricked. And we have 3 tiers of admins with only the top tier having enough permissions to do what was necessary for this hack, and it's very unlikely that our most well trained security focused admins would have fell for this social engineering.

Companies need to be properly penalized when they are breached like this, because these attacks would have been trivially dealt with by decent security measures at these 39 companies. The problem is that decent security measures don't come cheap, so the penalties have to be high enough for the cost of good security to be a no-brainer.

I enjoyed watching Avengers even though I know Iron Man and Thor aren't real. Being entertained by videos of things that don't exist in real life existed before GenAI.

You can only consider that a problem if you think a filmmaker watching someone's else's movie and deliberately learning something from the experience is a problem.

Of course AI artists should be trained on copyrighted material and be able to generate exact replicas if asked to by a human. There are plenty of fair-use scenarios where you can use copyrighted content, like parody and commentary. It is how the human uses the content generated by AI that makes it violate our laws, not the fact that the content can be generated.

No US courts are going to shut down such a productivity enhancing tool. If we are fine destroying 95% of farming and 65% of factory jobs because of automation, our society will be fine with destroying 90% of artistic jobs because of AI.

Shutting down innovation to protect jobs is just about the dumbest idea there is. We should pray that 90% of today's jobs are destroyed over the next 50 years, so people can either move into more productive jobs (like the last 100 years of progress) or live lives with far more leisure (an even better outcome IMHO).

The court case cited was not split or confused over the fact that what you just typed is false from a legal perspective (although you can obviously still have that opinion). The ruling was clear as day on this matter, even though there was more nuance when it came to the legality of how training material was obtained.

This all comes down to how well universities adapt the existence of LLMs. Bridges didn't start collapsing after calculators were invented because engineers couldn't do arithmetic anymore. My daughter's middle school already makes sure all her graded writing is done in class on paper or on monitored devices. My 11 year old already uses LLMs (and Khan Academy and ProWritingAid) to improve her writing, but assessments are always done in a way that makes LLM use impossible.

The comment is tongue and cheek, not a literal description of the current job market statistics. The author feels extensive use of AI by college students will damage their employability in the future.

That is why they use mainframes as their example. It implies SaaS will stick around and will be used for some of the most sensitive computing with the highest reliability needs (like mainframes today), but will be mostly irrelevant (or at least unseen) to most people working in the office. It also would mean that about 5-10% of IT spending would go to SaaS while the rest would go to the "Business Agents."

That is of course if their predictions hold water.

If we use your email vs fax machine analogy, SaaS sales will continue to grow through the end of 2026, and then drop by 60% by 2030 and be at 5% of current spending by 2040. That would represent how fax machine spending continued after the Internet entered the public domain in 1993.

I'm pretty sure if 90-95% of the SaaS market is wiped out over the next 10-15 years, that would align well with the predictions made in this article. Anyone hoping SaaS sticks around better hope the continued use of fax machines isn't an apt analogy to use.