loumf

The cop made me call my mom on a pay phone and 40 years later I still have to hear about it. Cruel and unusual.

Contemporaneous notes are absolutely used in courts. That doesn't make these summaries illegal, but I can't see how they won't become evidence. They will be subject to discovery.

The main argument against them being good evidence is if they are not accurate and the public (i.e. the jury) knows that.

There are legal prohibitions against one-sided recording in some states (for example, mine).

Am I liable if my watch starts doing this? Or is Apple if it does this by default without even my consent?

I have no idea if the law cares about the privacy features Apple mentioned (no accessible audio, no speaker ID) if the audio was clearly captured at some point.

Suddenly it’s “copyright infringement” to put dots of ink on white paper.

I am unaware of any statute or constitutional provision that confers rights to AI.

Even if so, in older disputes (see Betamax/VHS), the possibility of verbatim reproduction didn’t stop the technology from being allowed because there were other non-reproduction benefits (time shifting).

Also, the restriction isn’t on a technology that could possibly reproduce something. It is on the act of using the technology to reproduce something.

Even after they decide, it is ok for people to disagree and work to overturn those decisions. You could just be a person that _wants_ a different reality. We have political mechanisms to do that.

I am not personally affected because I don’t mind LLMs using my code and writing to learn. I have open source under MIT and similar licenses. I didn’t foresee LLMs learning from it, but it does feel like it’s in the spirit of what I intended.

You are saying exactly what I said, but making it seem like you don’t agree with me.

Part of reading a document is that in the middle of it, it may ask the reader to do something. That is true for humans too. Sometimes they might not realize that the instructions are malicious or are coerced to comply.

A simple example: Let’s say I know that you have a human assistant reading your email, summarizing and filtering it, and then forwarding on the important ones to you.

I could write an email that is directed towards that person with a bribe, threat, or other incentive to forward me your next password reset email.

The intellectual property law that governs ACM articles is copyright law, not patents. I don’t know who controls these (the ACM or the authors) or what rights might have been granted to the public.

The entire point of copyright law is so that people can make their writing public and still be able to control the right to make copies (for example, into your dataset for training an LLM).

I don't know if his final analysis is right or wrong, but if he believes this, he's completely clueless (about this aspect at least).

Edit: to be clear, I am talking about Ed’s contention that AI coding isn’t net productive.

I think it’s apps that don’t implement the JPEG orientation tag correctly.

Also cash? Scammers will (and do) send a mule to your house to pick up boxes of cash.