IMHO the fact that we have to, under criminal law, to testify against ourself is a violation of our Constitutional Rights, to not incriminate ourselves.
I'm sure there is some weird legal theory that the government uses to get around this.
But it's not criminal to declare your income. Only to not declare it.
Speech is generally recognized as something that's produced by humans. If I wrote a very simple bot program that followed you around the Internet and spammed you, you'd hardly be amenable to arguments that my bot program enjoys free speech protections under the first amendment to engage in such behavior.
Neither do humans if they are engaging in stalking behavior. The issue here should really be about the speech and not the agent which communicates it. If the speech would not be illegal for a human to utter, there is no reason it should be treated differently if "spoken" by A.I. software. Computer software is considered speech under the First Amendment, and that should cover any communications by the software. But the First Amendment doesn't cover all speech. Inciting crime, uttering threats, stalking and harassing, libel and slander, are all categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment. A.I. should not be treated differently than humans in that regard.
And those arguing in favor of these lawsuits seem to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say A.I. bots have agency and as non-humans aren't protected by the first amendment. But one cannot collect damages from a computer as a computer owns no capital. So, when it comes to the lawsuits, those same people say the computers don't have agency, and the human owners should be financially responsible for damages. You can't have your cake and eat it too!
We're in an age where social media is the norm, and schools are still grappling with the idea that cyber bullying on social media is a school phenomenon but does not actually occur on campus. From a policy perspective most schools are used to the idea of managing the physical space of the school and the community of children there, but has no idea how to handle cyber bullying despite a reported 21.6% of high schoolers face cyber bullying from their peers, much of it happening on campus and off.
Do you really want schools to be policing your children's Internet use off campus?
They have no such right. That's a right given to people, not companies.
That is simply incorrect. Companies have free speech rights too. Do you think they shouldn't. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN are all companies. Should they not have free speech rights?
⦠is why a private company is able to have access to this data in the first place.
They are an insurance company. They need that information to properly insure drivers and comply with state laws.
It irks me that people who do not understand what a job is think AI can do it. A developer probably spends about 10% of their time actually writing code. Rest of the time is spent figuring what the users need/want, or modifying/debugging existing code.
The joke is "AI will replace developers, as soon as users are able to tell it exactly what they want."
Also, wasn't COBOL, the "english-like" language, supposed to make programmers obsolete?
IMHO we should create an AI to replace VCs and CEOs - should be much easier!
How many rights do you really think minors should have?
This isn't about minors' rights. This is about the rights of any individual of any age who wishes to participate in online discussions without revealing their real name. There are many legitimate reasons for this: LGTBQ+ people who want support but aren't out of the closet yet, drug addicts seeking advice on how to find treatment, whistleblowers who are afraid of repercussions at their place of employment, people discussing political or religious views that might be unpopular or politically incorrect, etc. The list goes on and on. In today's cancel culture, the right to anonymous speech is more important than ever.
How many of us get past being able to play Itsy Bitsy Spider on the piano to playing Mozart's 5th by memory?
Mozart's 5th? His 5th what? Symphony? If so, that is a very early work no one knows and would not be played on a piano or any other single instrument anyway. Could you be talking about Beethoven's 5th Symphony? That is indeed a masterpiece for full orchestra.
No, not the reason. Apple is pulling out because they don't want to comply with the law that forbids anti-competitive behavior. Ie, the law requires interoperability, and Apple does not want that. This is not a money extraction from the EU, instead, unlike the USA, EU wants competition, and EU wants corporations to serve the public instead of vice versa.
By your logic, if I choose not to drive my car cause I don't want to comply with traffic laws, I should be fined. Yeah, that makes sense!
"One day I woke up and discovered that I was in love with tripe." -- Tom Anderson
