Good news! That has nothing to do with writing laws that could force these companies to open everything up about the models if Congress decides to do so.
There's no law in the constitution stating that you're allowed to steal all of humanities offerings and sell it back to to the public.
Dude you could literally just type any of the company's names and add the word "lawsuit" after it and see a plethora of lawsuits that were either lost or settled, and the majority of them are privacy related.
Its hard to believe just how many of you are this defensive of these companies and are just completely disingenuous, as if they give a shit about you.
I literally just typed "google lawsuit" and these came up.
You are posting links to civil judgements instead of criminal ones. This thread branch is about putting folks into prison. I am asking where these people have been convicted of a criminal offense where the punishment is prison. Do you have anything there? Because last I understood, the government needs to prove you guilty before they can incarcerate you in a prison.
lol, so reactionaries can derail the conversation with "well ackshually" as if amateur message board comments require the same level of formality as a court? I've been in enough ice-agent-murders-a-protestor threads to know to steer clear of that noise.
This regime have flagrantly violated their oaths of office, outright ignoring their Constitutional roles and instead acting in bad faith to achieve their own personal/political goals. These types of crimes aren't generally formalized and written down, which is why "high crimes and misdemeanors" is never defined out despite clearly being a thing. And as I said, the bar for conspiracy is quite low - investigation/discovery is when we find out exactly how much individual tech ceos have actively collaborated rather than merely placated.
We can save the formalities and technicalities, some of which will undoubtedly require novel precedents, for if they actually do see the inside of jail cells. But worries about how that might play out should not prevent us from demanding justice for what by all measures appears to be a concerted attack on the United States!
First, you seem to want to take this to politician place, I was asking about the crimes ypthat these executives have committed and convicted of that deserve prison.
> These types of crimes aren't generally formalized and written down
Then they aren't crimes. To have a crime you need a law first. Someone then has to break that law. You need an authority that recognizes and can enforce that law. Then you need a conviction under that law and a legal authority that can met out punishment. If you don't have a law, you cant have a crime and you cant have a conviction for it.
> But worries about how that might play out should not prevent us from demanding justice for what by all measures appears to be a concerted attack on the United States!
So your solution is “lets make what they did illegal now, and then convict them for a current law for something they did in the past that wasn’t illegal at the time they did it”?
Seems to me to be a dangerous precedent to set and one that will be used against you whenever power shifts (and power always shifts).
You seemingly have no idea about the actual work that needs to be performed by investigators, prosecutors, and judges - all bona fide skilled professions! And then based on that ignorance you blast me for not having done all of that work in a order to write a message board comment.
I don't know what you mean by "take this to politician place". The topic is inherently political. We're talking about an apparent conspiracy to overthrow the Constitutional United States Government and replace it with unaccountable corporate government, spearheaded by the reactionaries in office working from the inside to paralyze and demolish the Constitutional government.
That behavior is most certainly in the realm of criminality, despite there not being a law that directly states it. Rather it's the kind of thing that needs to be decomposed into specific chargeable crimes by prosecutors, after having been investigated for the extent of communications, agreements, etc that effect the conspiracy. And then judges make an actual decision which intrinsically creates new precedents (ie common law) because these type of things don't happen every day.
> I don't know what you mean by "take this to politician place"
Well, you wrote this, didn’t you?
>> This regime have flagrantly violated their oaths of office, outright ignoring their Constitutional roles and instead acting in bad faith to achieve their own personal/political goals.
You turned a simple question about what crimes were committed and convicted by tech leaders that deserved prison and decided to loop in a diatribe against the current administration. You apparently have an axe there you want to grind. So be it, but perhaps grind away on another thread appropriate to that topic.
> That behavior is most certainly in the realm of criminality, despite there not being a law that directly states it. Rather it's the kind of thing that needs to be decomposed into specific chargeable crimes by prosecutors, after having been investigated for the extent of communications, agreements, etc that effect the conspiracy. And then judges make an actual decision which intrinsically creates new precedents (ie common law) because these type of things don't happen every dao.
So…your answer is “no, they have not committed a crime for which they can be put in prison, but you really hope that some prosecutors and judges can get together to invent some way to parse legal behavior you disagree with into creating a precedent that can bypass congress’s responsibility to make law”.
Good to know.
It is shit like this that make people like you fucking scare the shit out of me…way more than some tech bro training AI on copyrighted material (And to put that in perspective, I am one of those people who think AI is probably gonna eventually kill us).
You keep playing coy as to the actual arguments being made. If you look at only one piece of a three piece whole, of course it looks incomplete. The entire point is that the big picture sure looks like these tech ceo's are conspiring to overthrow the Constitutional government. The topic for this thread, right here, is an action that fits the pattern.
> your answer is “no, they have not committed a crime for which they can be put in prison, but you really hope that some prosecutors and judges can get together to invent some way to parse legal behavior you disagree with into creating a precedent that can bypass congress’s responsibility to make law"
Uh, no, unequivocally. You're putting words in my mouth, of a hypberbolic straw man that you have created. As I said, you seem to be utterly ignorant about what is required for the legal system to actually operate - it's not a computer programming language. I suspect you know this, but it's just yet another thing you're playing coy about.
A flagrant violation requires clearly established jurisprudence. What is considered fair use has always been nebulous, and to the extent that there are standards on it, it's mainly through established precedence, of which there is none on AI training.
One can argue that the closest thing to an AI's training on a book is a person reading a book and remembering the details, which i'm sure you reject, but it's not prima facie unreasonable.
Five years ago this site was ready to burn you at the stake if you defended copyright laws, which clearly were only written to protect the rich and powerful, like Disney!
Now those laws are obviously there to defend the little guy against the oligarchs, and we should ready our pitchforks to march on Silicon Valley for daring to violate our precious copyright laws!!
I think HN takes issue with the hypocrisy of the matter. Copyright law was used to punish regular people for consuming illegal media, but AI tech companies are forgiven for using the same illegal methods to run a business.
That’s completely understandable, but that’s not what I see from HN. If you were outraged when individuals were prosecuted for copyright and then you demand that OpenAI be prosecuted for it, you’re the hypocrite.
The Guardian (i.e. someone on its staff) chose to publish this opinion piece.
I spent 8 years of my life at a daily news organization, I know for a fact that reporters, editors, executives, and sometimes even the advertisers have a voice in what is published…whether opinion or not.
No chance any ever passes. Amendment’s are difficult to pass by design.
The equal rights amendment which virtually nobody actually really opposes in theory in 2026 has been bantered around for 103 years as a concept and 54 years after congress approved it and sent it for ratification. Its close, but still no cigar. This is an amendment that is hardly controversial bit still cannot manage to be passed due to procedural issues and set deadlines being missed.
Now consider just how much effort and how long a controversial amendment would take…
Oh we care, but when it comes to cookie dickovers, we care more about making the corporate lawyers happy.
I’ll admit that I definitely like collecting my paycheck much more than I worry about customer annoyance at acknowledging a cookie policy. Some hills ain't worth dying on.
The vast majority of users don’t know or care. The ones who do are blocking the cookies anyways. No one wins with these popups (except trial lawyers and sellers of cookie consent SaaS, of course).
Protecting forms with reCAPTCHA uses cookies that fall under "marketing" and gathering site stats using Google Analytics uses cookies that fall under "marketing" and "statistics," making a consent banner or dickover pretty much required.
Are these services necessary for a page to work? Not at all, but many businesses consider them crucial. Unprotected public forms almost immediately start getting spammed by bots, burying real, important communications from potential clients. GA offers insight into what visitors to your site are looking for, which has real business value.
I don't like it any more than you do, but I get why businesses would choose to use these. On their end, at least with reCAPTCHA, they're just trying to protect themselves from the complete shitshow that the modern web has become.
No, it’s a legal CYA that provides safe harbor in case you are accused of the behavior. If a law says you need to inform, your lawyers will demand you inform even if zero cookies are used on the site.
> your lawyers will demand you inform even if zero cookies are used on the site.
How is not bothering to understand your business, using it as an excuse to hassle your customers in the worst way they have so far conceived and blaming a law that doesn't talk about cookie banners NOT spite?
> How is not bothering to understand your business
If you are a lawyer how technically competent would you need to be to have complete assurance that your engineering team is now and always will be in full compliance to eliminate all risk to allow a lack of consent.
Or…you just drop the Ack on site and not worry over it. Thats not spite, it’s compliance convenience.
The method of compliance may may not be perfect, but it addresses the legal problem. There wouldn't be a legal issue without the law. This is not a chicken or the egg situation. No law, no need to inform even if no tracking cookies exist.
> hassle your customers in the worst way they have so far conceived
By informing and asking for a acknowledgment? That seems pretty benign compared to a ton of things I have seen over the last nearly three decades.
So make it illegal to spy on users…not this “wishy-washy ask for their permission” first. If spying is the crux of the problem why not just solve it?
Instead we are presented with some lukewarm have it both ways BS where the only solution to truly give you safe harbor is present the cookie acknowledgment. Good corporate lawyers will demand the dickover even if you do not use cookies at all just to cover the company’s ass.
For me the rule now is…use AI to analyze and summarize (but check it like a hawk). However, after some initial experimentation to see capabilities, I refuse to use it to create anything new.
It’s certainly on the surface impressive, but when I dive into the details of what it creates, the slop becomes so apparent I cant unsee it and it distracts me.
How many cuban ex-pats do you know? I would say “not many”.
Every cuban ex-pat I know (and thats quite a lot because I live in FL) will tell you there is a Cuba problem. They all still have family suffering under that regime.
Let me rephrase. The is no "Cuba problem" that the US needs to deal with any differently than it deals with/has dealt with the many other countries in the Americas that have/had people suffering under their regimes who had family in the US.
As far as Cuba in particular goes, the suffering there would be a lot less if the US would drop its 65+ year old embargo and let them trade like all the other repressive regimes it is indifferent to.
Most of them don't have a history of direct hostility towards the US and specifically having the willingness to allow a US foe to use their proximity to plant tactical weapons to threaten the US.
Castro was already playing footsie with the Soviets and Castro nationalizing US business interests was one of the reasons we decided to invade.
That was 64 years ago and are you suggesting here that things that happened that far back have no bearing today? Hell, the brother of the dictator from 64 years ago is currently in charge there today still oppressing the Cuban people so it’s not like there hasn't been some continuity.
Here is a nice little brain teaser…What law would that be? And who would or could enforce said law? And if said law cannot be enforced, is it actually a law at all?
> Explain how that gave the US any "soft power" influence over the Cuban government.
Pretty sure the Castro bros regime knowing that there is nearly a half million people who are specifically “non-fans” of the current Cuban government, but are people patriotic towards Cuba, with family still in Cuba…who are sitting 100 miles off the Cuban shores would factor into cuban government decision making as it relates to US relations.
