> Given this legal framework
What legal framework? Is there a law against accepting OSS contributions from Russians? I'm struggling to understand the actual compliance issue.
2243 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Aug 2006
> People are there for when the pre-programmed bits aren't enough to sort the issue automatically
Well, yes. But that doesn't mean some of those non-automatic things couldn't be automated. It's just that the current systems haven't automated them. There'll be some things that aren't automated but could be, and some that aren't automated and (probably) can't be. The former exists.
> AI is rapidly transforming our society and the world of work
Is it? To be honest I think the idea of regulating the setting and not the technology is right. I don't care if the kill order is given by an LLM or by a ball falling in the wrong hole in a pinball machine. It's what people do with its output that matters.
> Sources speaking to The Register at the time claimed HSBC also may have closed the mosque's account because of a donation made to an unspecified Palestinian org during its 2015 war with Israel. In 2021, the mosque won a libel case against the news agency, which had to pay unspecified damages as its wrongful placement on the list caused banks to refuse to accept the mosque as a customer.
For anyone else who couldn't follow who "the news agency" was, it's Thompson Reuters, mentioned way up higher in the article.
I'm no Oracle fan.
But:
> "Members are of the opinion that they were not being given the full facts," the report said.
The members wouldn't know what to do with the full facts. They won't understand them, any more than most of us would be able to judge the results of surveys on the land they were going to bore through to make a new Tube line. They just won't say it.
> however you believe we can do 4 things, it's just the 5th one that is a problem
It might be a problem - anything can be a problem to someone - but it seems not on the same scale of things as the others. I don't think 5 is a problem if anyone does it. I think it's particularly distracting when large, unnatural steps forward can be made in multiple areas.
This is all entirely unsurprising, and why no one should want the government to handle any more things than the bare minimum...
But...
I will say this: the less time businesses have to spend on fake activity like tax affairs, and the more time they can spend on doing useful things for their customers, the better off we'll all be. So the estimates on the benefits might be under-egging it.
> the same people who want things free also want to have very nice vacations.
This is a good way to put it. "Things should be zero cost, but also everyone should be well paid" is definitely an idea validated by years of low interest rates. I hope they find a way, as it would be nice if it were zero cost for as many people as possible, but the transition between paid and free can become very tricky.
The problem is it's all concentrated in one place. It's fine to have people arriving in a location with money - they will slightly push up house prices, but not disastrously so, and they will spend their money locally as well. The issue is the concentration of many companies all bidding for the same pool of developers, who get wealthy off the competition, and are all wanting to buy houses in the same place.