charonn0

Based on the show they've put on in Ukraine, and leaving aside nuclear weapons, I don't think the Russian military is a credible threat to NATO.

If OpenAI owns a Copyright on the output of their LLMs, then I side with the NYT.

If the output is public domain--that is you or I could use it commercially without OpenAI's permission--then I side with OpenAI.

Sort of like how a spell checker works. The dictionary is Copyrighted, the spell check software is Copyrighted, but using it on your document doesn't grant the spell check vendor any Copyright over it.

I think this strikes a reasonable balance between creators' IP rights, AI companies' interest in expansion, and the public interest in having these tools at our disposal. So, in my scheme, either creators get a royalty, or the LLM company doesn't get to Copyright the outputs. I could even see different AI companies going down different paths and offering different kinds of service based on that distinction.

Americans are not the caricatures of evil and malice you seem to think we are.

The topic at hand is wheelchair accessibility, though.

Are you referring to something specific?

Of all the things you could reasonably criticize the US over, wheelchair accessibility ain't one of them. Especially compared to Europe.

This isn’t foreign policy.

It's a policy that pertains to how the US relates to a foreign government. If that's not foreign policy, nothing is. Plus, have you read the lawsuit? It wants the court to order the president to "influence" Israel. Influencing a foreign government is smack dab in the middle of the president's authority.

Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President they can’t give stuff to war criminals because it’s our stuff.

Yes. And they have declined to do so.

The Leahy law doesn’t say if the executive feels like they’re war criminals

It says the Secretary of State shall make that determination. Secretary of State is part of the executive branch.

You think we have a king. We do not.

That's obviously not what I think.

A ruling that the court could dictate foreign policy would be bigger and more ridiculous.

The law is not being violated; it's being followed. The law delegates the power to declare foreign states terrorist supporters to the executive branch. The executive branch has declined to do so, and now Congress has declined to force the issue. The courts must defer to the executive's judgement here--even if that judgement is wrong.

Congress has weighed in.

https://theintercept.com/2024/01/16/senate-israel-human-rights-condition-aid/

So this lawsuit is even deader now than it was yesterday.

• The right to make medical decisions on behalf of the other
• The right to visit the other in the hospital
• The right to make funeral arrangements for the other
• The right to survivor's benefits (veteran's benefits, Social Security, private pension, etc.)
• Income tax breaks and credits
• Tax breaks on inheritance and estate taxes
• Tax breaks on money and property transfers between spouses
• Immigration and naturalization rights
• Can't be forced to testify against the other (usually)
• Communications between married partners are privileged from discovery in civil and criminal cases (usually)
• Joint adoption rights
• Bereavement leave
• Joint bankruptcy protection
• Automatic recognition of the relationship by every state, nation, etc.

Etc. There's something like 1,000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that attach through marriage only.

sigh I don't know what else to say and I'm done wasting my time. Your political belief is that Israel ought to be declared a terrorist state? Fine. But that doesn't change my legal analysis that this lawsuit is DOA.

They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I've pointed out.

Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.