fiatmoney
fiatmoney on Hacker News
"But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders."
This is a settled area of law; revoking the copyright would be a "taking", inarguably for the public good, and the copyright holder would be entitled to just compensation.
IMO that is the appropriate way to handle this issue; effectively the government uses eminent domain to seize the copyright.
Who's "that dude on reddit"?
Financial networks interpret regulation as damage and route around it.
That part of the opinion is nonbinding dicta - basically the judge freestyling, without setting precedent.
He was charged with "criminal possession of a controlled substance". Your point?
That is a recipe for centralized power unaccountable to the population they are theoretically protecting.
Docking fees & maintenance are what get you.
Simplifications. "Arrest" has specific meaning in most jurisdictions. "Seizing" would be more appropriate; one can seize property as well as persons, and in the case of persons there can be a seizure without an arrest.
The point is what a designation is for; in the case of an arrest vs detention or seizure for natural persons, it's usually an elaborate shell game around when various search doctrines or other restraints on police behavior kick in. In the case of property, the only point is to grab your stuff; the circumstances surrounding it don't particularly matter because they can always decide later under one doctrine or another that they're entitled to keep it.
Cannot "arrest" something that's not a natural person, but yes, they could absolutely seize a bot under a number of civil forfeiture laws, or likely as evidence. The burden would be on the owner to sue to get it back.
There is zero incentive to recognize money laundering "too well", particularly because it means essentially whatever FinCEN wants it to mean. It's an issue for lawyers to hash out exactly what patterns must be recognized.
Well, in one sense it has notches.
In another, the legs are crooked.
It's almost like a government-encouraged oligopoly is maximizing the amount of value they can seize from people regulatorily encouraged / forced to buy their product.
Just wait until enough democratic voters are imported to overturn Proposition 13 (caps property taxes at roughly what they were when you bought the house, and requires 2/3 vote in the legislature for tax increases).
California is trying so hard to go full Venezuela, and the only buffer they have are the three or so major industries that are doing well (agriculture, entertainment, and tech). If there's a contraction in those sectors, expect a death spiral.
"one human is a pretty constant unit of work"
Trivially false; human productivity routinely differs by a factor of thousands to millions.
I'm saying they're modelling the problem incorrectly as a CS endeavor when it has a lot more to do with analytic philosophy.
"How do I make a program make beautiful music" is a CS problem, but only after you have some notion of aesthetics in the first place.
In the context of a universal optimizer, "how do we make this program behave reasonably without bad side effects" is maybe a CS problem, but it's predicated on "how do we codify our notion of reasonable behavior", which is analytic philosophy with probably a bit of social science thrown in.
Problem-posing is itself difficult and how a lot of philosophical breakthroughs are made. If you want rigorous problem-posing where the solution would be handy for AI, hiring a philosopher might be a good start. Very few of us are equipped to do this kind of work, certainly not here in the comments section.
These are not asking the right questions, although they kind of hint at it, and they are not fundamentally questions about AI. Example: "Can we transform an RL agent's reward function to avoid undesired effects on the environment?" Trivially, the answer is yes; put a weight on whatever effect you're trying to mitigate, to the extent you care about trading off potential benefits. They qualify this by saying essentially "... but without specifying every little thing". So - what you're trying to do is build a rigorous (ie, specified by code or data) model of what a human would think is "reasonable" behavior, while still preserving freedom for gordian knot style solutions that trade off things you don't care about in unexpected ways.
The hard part is actually figuring out what you care about, particularly in the context of a truly universal optimizer that can decide to trade off anything in the pursuit of its objectives.
This has been a core problem of philosophy for 3000 years - that is, putting some amount of rigorous codification behind human preferences. You could think of it as a branch of deontology, or maybe aesthetics. It is extremely unlikely that a group sponsored by Sam Altman, whose brilliant idea was "let's put the government in charge of it" [1], will make a breakthrough there.
I don't actually doubt that AIs would lead to philosophical implications, and philosophers like Nick Land have actually explored some of that area. But I severely doubt the ability of AI researchers to do serious philosophy and simultaneously build an AI that reifies those concepts.
[1] http://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-2
It's odd (but maybe not surprising) how much fixation there is on concentration camps, the focus of the book, as a synecdoche for Nazi Germany as a whole, when they were only really up and running for the last 4 years or so of a 12 year rule.
It is difficult to look at "% of users who become addicts" in a vacuum, since it's a population selected for willingness to take illegal drugs and hang out with the sorts of people with access to them.
"Birth control" is ridiculously available. "Hormonal birth control" can have serious side effects and interactions, at least at the level of something like tylenol-fortified opiods or mild antidepressants, to say nothing of any net public-health effects (even after you account for "unwanted pregnancies"). Hell, testosterone, the direct analog, is Schedule III.
But some people have a political interest in promoting infertility, so quasi-OTC it goes.
"Surprise" is relative; "blitzkrieg" (or "shock and awe") might be more apt. Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama all fit the pattern. Kosovo doesn't as much, but then again there were other considerations there (eg, not pissing off Russia too much).
You're right on the higher-level strategy, but operationally it relies heavily on immediately killing off all C&C, air defense, air force, etc. in the first few hours so you can then bomb with impunity.
US defense doctrine mostly revolves around massive surprise first strikes on countries with limited ability to retaliate. Aircraft carriers are OK at this, if you want to, eg, bomb the crap out of Uruguay and don't have basing or transit rights nearby. That doesn't eliminate their vulnerabilities or the cost/benefit ratio, but having a few is handy if you're running a global empire.
The fact that 1/3 of the world's population (in a world where 1/2 lives in urban areas) does not live in such circumstances strongly suggests that that is an arrangement is not empirically available, or not empirically valued.
Even more frankly, I'm not sure that availability of stargazing is a universal enough aesthetic preference, compared to extremely widespread desire for nighttime illumination, to give it any significant policy weight at all.
Frankly, I'm OK with trading off massive economic growth and reduction of human misery, including conquering darkness itself, in exchange for having to take a trip out to the country if you want to go stargazing.
I don't actually find it that implausible that the same sort of organizations that engage in experimental torture campaigns also engage in at least some experimental gaslighting campaigns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah
There is a simple solution, particularly in the context of congressional or other government investigations: subpoena them. Nondisparagement clauses don't & can't cover compelled testimony.
No, I didn't. The salient aspect is "nice" neighbors; people like poor teachers, or unemployed kids of existing residents, are just fine. Things like HOAs are particularly brutally enforced in poorer neighborhoods attempting to become or stay "nice" (eg, in black but predominantly middle class neighborhoods).
Suburbia is a defensive design. Big houses & lots, and lack of public transport, means that it tends to be more expensive and requires reliable access to a car. Low density means that blight doesn't spread as quickly, and geographically-selected organizations (in particular school districts) don't change as quickly, and they're also selecting membership from the same groups that can afford the real estate and transport. HOAs explicitly prioritize maintaining property values.
This all selects for higher-quality neighbors.
There are ways to achieve this in urban settings, but it tends to require more direct, onerous, and legally iffy regulation.
It's not about it "counting", it's about what patterns violence follows. Mental health interventions, gun control, counterterrorism operations, etc don't help gang-related shootings.