Laws require very precise, objective definitions of all terms. That's why they start with very precise, objective definitions of all terms. Because those that don't, generally don't survive legal challenges, and legislators (outside of California, at any rate) don't like looking stupid.

Maybe you should have led with that, instead of a completely useless, if not actively harmful dictionary defintion.

A dictionary definition is completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context.

But now feel free to use a completely useless, if not actively harmful, in a legal context dictionary definition of "high degree," "industrial processing," "large quantities," or even "food."

And I want a pony, but here we are.

Yeah, just like what happened to Microsoft when they were found to be a monopoly because they favored their own browser over any other.

We're so fortunate that they were broken up into multiple companies!

They are ensuring consistency. They are insuring it is consistently shitty.

Lawyers are obligated to act in certain ways, and when they don't, they can be held liable. It's a high bar, but it can, and does, happen.

(More likely would be them giving their clients bad advice, and the client suing them.)

Meta is an advertising company that is investing heavily in AI. To develop their AI ad bot, they need staggering amounts of data about the eyeballs they want to sell, and that data needs to be kept up to date.

They have literally hundreds of billions of dollars of incentive to put in those backdoors.

And a long history of putting those dollars above all other concerns, like user privacy, or the law.

"doesn't necessarily mean they put in backdoors" is another way of saying "but they certainly could if they wanted to, and they want to."

They've had a policy (the same, I'm sure) on that for much, much, much longer.

Other than that, it really isn't.

(A lot of lawyers don't use Office at all, because there are other word processors that got into the business of legal templates way back, and lawyers, like most users, don't like change, and the templates they have aren't for Office.)

I suspect there's more to their requirements than just that, but that was the biggest concern, apparently.

I know a lawyer whose firm has just updated their formal policy on the use of AI. It used to be "Don't." Now, they're allowed to use one, but only if the firm higher ups have specifically approved it. There are none approved, and apparently none available that meet their requirements.

Interestingly, their issue isn't that AIs make up case law (they're not overworked, and aren't idiots, so they know they would have to carefully vet anything produced), but that to be useful, the query would submit to the AI engine client information they are legally required to keep confidential, and that information will be recorded and used to create future answers for other users.

The internet is a public place. What you do there is public. The whole world can watch while you do. It is designed that way, and there's nothing that can change that.

He can come up with whatever pods he wants, with the user having absolutely control over how it's used. But he can't control what everyone else observes in that public place, and what they do with it. Advertising companies like Google and Meta will still surveille everything they possibly can (which is, increasingly, everything), collect every byte available, subject it all to their algorithms, and sell advertising based on it.

And once those massive databases exist in private hands, governments can, and will, compel those companies to fork it over for whatever purpose they choose, be it criminal investigation or political oppression or genocide. That is the inherent nature of government.

The only way for the user to opt out is to not be on the internet, which is increasingly crippling in today's world, because the user has no role in what happens in that public place other than just being there to be spied on.

Or the AI will hallucinate that it's already launched a nuclear attack and destroyed the world, and spend eternity happily playing Minecraft.

Or Able Archer 83, which was arguably even closer.

It was obvious from the beginning that it never could. And it was obvious to the people hyping it, too.

What the horrible people want is almost never what they say they want. What they generally want is to sell a lot of stock, then bail out before the pyramid collapses and the bubble pops. They generally don't care if what they say they want is possible.

Indeed, but that new equilibrium will be the next bubble, lather, rinse, repeat.

If there's one thing where it's desirable to replace humans with AIs, it would be the Human Centipede.