what about the fear is irrational?

That usage turns the entire meaning of social responsibilities on its heads. It's one of those maddening fash tics where they reverse the plain meaning a statement.

It is narrower than that by law, though not by their proclamation.

That label forbids contractors on DoD contracts for billing DoD for Anthropic, or including Anthropic as part of their DoD solution.

So - AWS can keep claude on bedrock, but can't provide claude to the DoD under its DoD contracts

are you sure it won't enabled targeted enforcement for people law enforcement finds irritating, more than evenly applied law? It's still people setting the priorities and exercising discretion about charging.

It should be easier to audit since you would have a list of who broke the law, but action had not been taken yet.

do you think the records of the vast number of police departments and agencies would be combinable with the separate court records, as well as the facial recognition access data source (if it exists?)

I think that is pretty unlikely

people working for corporations produce things, I think you'll find the incorporating docs, and the property owned do not produce things by themselves.

But that’s the point. UBI allows people to not work for a corporation while also costing money that came from somewhere. Generally when there are corporate docs and owned property, those are the things required before production starts. What you’re saying doesn’t really affect the point.

I agree but you'll also find that the workers without the capital and tools do not produce things either.

I think you two are using different definitions of society.

In this comment society seems to mean "the government, and its tax revenue profit/loss statement"

In the previous comment society seems to be construed more broadly and encompass both non-economic activity and economic activity outside the collection and disbursement of tax funds.

> In this comment society seems to mean "the government, and its tax revenue profit/loss statement"

No, that's not correct. I specifically separated the pure economic impact from the society impact, but the only societal impact used to quantify the success of the pilot scheme is that the people paid a basic income by the scheme had higher life satisfaction as measured by a single survey question.

That is the basis used by Government to claim that it's a social benefit.

Personally, I support the arts and I think that culture, health, housing accessibility, safety, fitness, happiness, and companionship are all better measures of a society than GDP or other fiscal metrics.

Right now, we have a health, housing, and social crises desperate for resources - resources that are allocated exclusively through Euro budgets. This pilot scheme has not demonstrated any cultural or social impact at all. Only the aforementioned increase in recipient satisfaction.

Meanwhile people in dire situations face multi-year waits for operations, or dying of a treatable stroke/MI due to a lack of ambulances, or death by suicide as the mental health services are overwhelmed.

Is the WELLBY score of these artists more important the WELLBY score of parents awaiting their kid's operation for the second or third spring? Or burying their children? Or raising them in hotel rooms?

Ireland is only economically successful. We are failing our citizenry abysmally outside of fiscal terms and basic income for artists should be allocated while hundreds of more pressing needs are left unmet.

I have started to notice some similarities to MS Access development, where an SME creates a useful app for themselves and begins to share it.

I wonder if it will have a similar pattern of creating a mess as the app starts to get uptake and the SME can't scale their attention to be an app owner, as well as an SME at the same time.

Also makes me think that an llm-developed-app-friendly shared datastore would be a useful thing to have

I like your 'llm-developped-app-friendly shared datastore' idea and would pursue it.

While taking ownership of AI slop is not an option for me, I do want to avoid shadow IT.

Might be a moon shot .. could sharing a prompt template with git access to colleagues be a way to enforce it ?

the more little old ladies around, the easier it is to raise kids.

retraining programs are famously both failures and mostly absent for this sort of disruption.

displaced factory workers mostly drift into janitorial or cab driving sorts of work. Why would it be different for other sorts of workers?

hang on, in what way are regulatory agencies not expected to provide justification.

That is very nearly the lion's share of the work these agency do, is to justify the regulations and the decisions

Some agencies lean towards proper justification (the EPA, for example, has been generally okay at best about this) other regulatory bodies don't.

While it is not a popular topic here, gun laws, and I am taking a risk with my karma even talking about it, have been subject to some of the most vague and dangerous interpretations by the ATF. In this case we provided congress a way to bypass constitutional scrutiny (pre-bruen) by deferring to the ATF. Two examples are bump stocks, and FRTs, both of which the ATF interpreted as "machine guns", defying their own regulatory definition, and creating felons out of innocent people quite literally overnight. Honest people had their doors literally kicked in. This is a terrifying level of power. It is not the first time the ATF has done this. I would recommend spending time reading the writings of GOA and FPC if you'd like to see how confusing it is for a law abiding gun owner to stay within the lines of the law when Chevron Deference existed. At any point something you lawfully buy, fill out the correct forms, and lawfully own, could be suddenly interpreted with no notification as criminal and thus you INSTANTLY become a felon. There are violations of ex-post-facto, denial of constitutional rights, etc.

Justification is highly subjective and in many cases these regulatory agencies are handed the pen to write and sign their laws.

There is no difference between a regulatory agency writing and passing law, and congress completely deferring all responsibility to them. This is the problem. "Justification" is not held to any standard.

My personal opinion is opinion from a regulatory agency should be held to a higher standard than even the most prestigious academic journal given the consequences. Chevron Deference being used to regulate companies is one thing. Chevron Deference being used to regulate constitutional rights is a consequence, and thus, it is a good thing it is eliminated. Perhaps congress can actually do it's job and demand a higher level of scrutiny, care, and precision from our regulatory agencies.