"..."qualified immunity" not would not be possible to do the job without i.t"
Talk about a disqualifying comment.

There is an immense amount of government experience.

"...it's a job just like any one other and that it should be."

Yes, as though that supports your absurd point of view.

I like the "at this point" part, an open admission that this used to be OK with you. And which of "our basic freedoms" are being "destroyed" here?

"Everyone is pulling out of the US EV market..."

Except they are not, dream on MAGA.

AI "anything" is worse than human equivalent, AI has no values. It's faster, so what? It's easy to go fast when it can be wrong.

The overwhelming majority of features that go into making a human mind what it is do NOT have analogs in LLMs nor do AI companies have any interest in making that happen. Instead, AI is a billionaires' rush to own the one interesting thing that has recently developed. Claiming that AI is about to produce super-human intelligence is really a monstrous insult to everyone's intelligence, it is taking a huge shit on our integrity.

Worse than that, sociopaths are people lacking important aspects of what makes human minds what they are and what makes them worth emulating. Every LLM ever is a worse sociopath than has ever existed in human form. LLMs, by design, lack EVERY redeeming feature of human thought. This is why they appeal to billionaires, they can be a tool to exploit people far better than any sociopath ever could. AI companies do not view this as a liability, it is a feature.

Modern software increasingly does not depend on traditional compilers. How terrified will you be when there is no compiler at all?

"This is the tool you rely on to make your code."

Tell that to Python users. Do not worry though, there aren't many of those!

"...then that's just being naive."

Naive is thinking this problem hasn't existed for decades. It's been well understood before you even went to school. It's NOT an AI issue.

It is intuitively NOT copyright infringement because when a human does exactly the same it is not. The law was clearly intended for it not to be.

"So if LLM-generated code retains GPL copyright..."

LLM-generated code would be LLM-generated, it may be governed by copyright but it would not because any copyright were "retained". The code is newly generated, by definition.

Your assertion that "a lot of the training data is probably GPL code" doesn't mean anything. What would matter is if there is theft of copyrighted work. And LLMs may be able to use copyrighted works for training, just like humans can. It would seem to be fair use for LLMs if it is fair use for humans. This has not been tested, although one could not tell that by /. comments.

Existing law presumes there is a big difference between learning and copying. With AI that has become different and the law is not equipped to deal with it.

"...if the LLM stole too much from its training data..."too much" may not be a lot..."

Any amount of stealing is too much, but LLMs cannot and do not steal in and of themselves even if they are tasked to steal. LLMs learn and then apply that learning, just as humans do. When humans do that, it is not called stealing. It is called ownership of what you've learned.

Current law is simply inadequate, there will no longer be a distinction between what is learned and what is copied when they can be essentially the same. Simply avoiding AI-generated code may not be enough, relying on copyright itself becomes a problem when copyright is no longer helpful.

LOL I posted the exact same thing. Walking is most obvious, when you realize that this entire topic is worthless. Mankind has known these things forever.

The fact that we can talk is remarkable, but other animals can too.

The area that makes me most aware of this, musical performance. When a musician performs in a group, his mind is engaged with the group, not the skills. The body does the work, generally without the mind even being aware of it. The music comes out, how that happens seems a mystery.

"Driving is the perfect example"

Driving isn't even "the perfect example", walking is. How the brain works is better understood than presented here, to an embarrassing extent. We've known longer than any of us have been alive that the brain learns and no longer needs to be actively focused on skills in order to perform them. Anyone who plays a musical instrument is acutely aware of this.

"They demanded the phone..."
You assume.

"...and he caused the contents on it to be unrecoverable."
Allegedly. That would have to be proven.

"This was at a border checkpoint, and the rules are a little different."
So say the cops about the "rules". ICE has things to say about "the rules" too, including how they can murder citizens.

"But once he gave the duress password, he effectively caused the phone's decryption keys to be wiped, and the aforementioned article kicks in."
You do not know this, it is simply alleged.

"Guess this is what is about to be tested in court."
Maybe, maybe not. First, prove there was a letter, then prove it was eaten. Then maybe it can get tested in court.

A whole lotta words for a subject that is entirely irrelevant. We aren't talking about anything "outside of all countries borders".

This is what you get when trolls decide they are intellectuals.

"Since there are countless cases of smartphones having incriminating communications, this suspicion is valid."
WHAT? No suspicion has even been justified, much less determined valid. Imagine this in a court of law, someone committed a crime once, so my suspicion that you committed a crime is valid.

"In legal terms it is now called "evidence""
No it's not. There's no suspicion that a crime has even been committed. It's just property being held.

"A blank piece of paper is evidence once confiscated. It almost certainly can't serve as evidence of guilt."
As if this is a useful distinction. When the judge has lunch in his office, does the food become "evidence"?

"It's by default a detainment zone..."
By what authority? And what does "detainment" mean?

"You choose to enter the border (leaving your country) with the intent to exit the border and enter another country. You are willingly submitting to both countries agents."
This is a misunderstanding of what a "border" is. A border is a line, not a zone. You do NOT "enter a border", you cross one.

"Yet the phone became evidence the moment it was confiscated."
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

"It absolutely is a crime to intentionally destroy evidence. Been that way for hundreds of years."
It's not evidence, though. You just need it to be for your narrative.

"It's a crime to destroy evidence of guilt and evidence of innocents too."
Delightful for the ignorance, the street-dumbness AND the illiteracy.

"Of course those features are legal. It's how you use them that matters."
There is no law against determining what is stored on your own property and there is no evidence that anything stored on that phone would incriminate anyone of any crime. Worse than that, we have not seen any evidence that any data was even erased.

"Stabbing someone with it however is not one of those legal uses."
Sure, and the analogy here is what exactly? What got stabbed besides your education and integrity?