Which is exactly why the output of an AI trained on copyrighted inputs should not be copyrightable. It should not become the private property of whichever company owns the language model. That would be bad for a lot more reasons than the potential for laundering open source code.
charonn0
joined 1 year ago
“Telling any person qualified to register to vote or vote in New Hampshire that the January 23, 2024, New Hampshire democratic Presidential Primary Election is ‘meaningless’... constitutes an attempt to prevent or deter New Hampshire voters from participating [in the primary]... in violation of RSA 659:40, III,” Assistant Attorney General Brendan O’Donnell wrote in the order to the DNC, citing a portion of the state’s voting rights law.
RSA 659:40, III:
No person shall engage in voter suppression by knowingly attempting to prevent or deter another person from voting or registering to vote based on fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, or spurious grounds or information. Prohibited acts of voter suppression include:
(a) Challenging another person's right to register to vote or to vote based on information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.
(b) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or from voting by providing that person with information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.
(c) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or from voting at the proper place or time by providing information that he or she knows to be false or misleading about the date, time, place, or manner of the election.
Seems like the AG is really stretching. Calling it "meaningless" is almost certainly protected by the 1st Amendment.
She's obviously setting up for another attempt to overthrow the government.
The part that you're apparently having trouble understanding is that a language model is not a human mind and a human mind is not a language model.
If it's not infringement to input copyrighted materials, then it's not infringement to take the output.
Copyright can be enforced at both ends or neither end, not one or the other.
It wouldn't. The 14th specifically says Congress can remove the insurrection disqualification.
Congress should pass a resolution removing Trump's disqualification.
That would satisfy the 14th amendment without setting a nasty political precedent while at the same time serving as an official recognition that Trump committed acts that triggered the 14th amendment.
Congress can only remove the disqualification, they can't impose it.
It's a problem that the amendment doesn't tell us how it's supposed to work, but the fact that other disqualifying factors (age, residency, etc.) are determined by the states suggests that the states can determine disqualification on the insurrection factor too, and through the same procedural mechanisms.
Requiring a conviction in the first place is the special treatment I'm referring to.
Disqualification is not a criminal penalty. If it were then it could be removed by a presidential pardon.
Instead it can only be removed by Congress--a body that is specifically prohibited from passing laws that set or alter someone's criminal liability.
What you're saying is literally insane.