Even further - could it download a distilled modeb runtime in response to your type of question - if we’re talking vacation planning download vacation.model for 10 seconds and then let’s talk?
I once had chatGPT run a research about popular stacks in job openings across Europe. Not that I don't already work with React + some Python, I was just doing it out of curiosity for it's results.
After 5-7 minutes of work, it returns many results, yet it's citing 2 specific websites as sources, one of which was blogspam you'd write to get visibility on Google results.
So I guess we're heading towards a future where websites will be optimized to increase the probability of chatGPT and AI tools to use you as a reference and link to you with confidence, regardless of their sources.
I had a recent example of ChatGPT giving me a really fishy answer I didn’t believe after it searched online, so I looked at the cited page, and it was clearly hallucinated slop written by another AI.
I wish for it to only use sources that are older than 2019 and have zero ads and referral links, haha.
I don’t think you can have a public domain trademark; that doesn’t make sense with the concept. A trademark is specifically to identify the source of a product or service; if it were public domain and anyone could use it, its purpose would’ve been defeated.
Trademarks can become genericized, which is a bit like them falling into the public domain. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark) However I don't know if the owner of a trademark can legally make it generic.
That’s not the same thing. Trademarks become generalised terms in the public’s mind, not legally. Two people in conversation might refer to a non-Xerox photocopier as a Xerox, but a non-Xerox photocopier company can’t just advertise their products as being Xerox.
Additionally, from the wikipedia page you linked (emphasis mine):
> A trademark thus popularized is at risk of being challenged or revoked, unless the trademark owner works sufficiently to correct and prevent such broad use.
Which, again, goes directly counter to the idea of a public domain trademark.
It becomes legal if the trademark owner can no longer defend the trademark. The difference is that here the trademark owner would somehow have to guarantee they would no longer defend the trademark. We're not worried about perifractic, but what about if he dies and someone more litigious inherits the mark? The issue if how to legally say "I will no longer defend this mark, and this will be forever."
When a trademark becomes "genericized," the trademark is lost and any other company can use it for their own products. The word "escalator" used to be a trademark and now anyone can sell escalators and market them as such.
> Independent certification that something fits a brand but anyone is allowed to use the brand if they pass certification.
But then it’s not public domain (which was the argument I was replying to). Public domain means everyone can do it without permission, while applying for a certification still requires a governing body which has the ultimate power.
That all sounds nice, but if the government (US) doesn't honor it's own laws, what
s to stop it from using unreasonable measures to coerce Amazon into doing what it wants?
This whole setup collapses when Bezos calls someone and says "you're fired if you don't do as I say", which he might if Trump leans heavily on him or threatens to take control.
> AWS will establish an independent advisory board for the AWS European Sovereign Cloud, legally obligated to act in the best interest of the AWS European Sovereign Cloud.
The above quote implies that the threat from Bezos should have no effect. Then again, I have no experience in corporate politics. Are you saying that even with that quote the "AWS European Sovereign Cloud" setup is pointless in practice?
"Independent" does not really change anything about the advisory/governance thing.
And tech companies are very well known for breaking laws, especially privacy related ones, so I don't see the point either, yes.
> What about "independent" and "legally obligated"?
What about them? It can be as independent and legally obligated to focus on whatever set of interests you want, if its only an advisory board, then it has no real power. (And, unless there is some guarantee of information other than what the management of the main org feels like giving it to support its advisory function, it can't even serve as a reliable canary.)
Trump doesn't need to be so heavy handed in your imaginary scenario as this is covered by The Cloud Act. The data is still hosted by an American company so with a proper warrant, Amazon will be legally required to hand over data.
In this scenario, the US parent company does not have physical access to the data, so it needs to request it from the EU subsidiary. The subsidiary then refuses the transfer to comply with German law.
Do you think you, or anyone, have the capacity to understand changes you are making to a system developed over decades, that manages trillions and affects real lives, with only a few days worth of experience with the system?
I never made that claim, I only say the raw age is irrelevant and distracts from the real headline. Experience with those specific systems is a separate category. e.g. a 25 year old with 8 years of finance systems programming might be more qualified than a 50 year old with 3 years in that domain, it all depends on their background. The more important headline is that it's an illegal coup.
The article explicitly mentions how the system's normal maintainers are in a panic because this kid 'Fred' they have no info about (not even a last name) has unlimited access to change things.
I think the claim here is that more actual human suffering is coming out of the status quo which we think needs to be fixed with fairly drastic action.
The Mexican cartels for example do provide aid in predominantly poor parts of the country but there are still many who would say that overall these organizations provide more harm than good.
The US is providing some resources for causes that you and other's support (presumably with a much higher "success" rate than the cartels) but they have also historically funded and perpetuated things that many are not happy with (various conflicts in the middle east come to mind).
Some of us wanted to see dramatic reform and we feel that claims like "grandma is going to starve because she won't get her groceries" are really just an attempt to connect with emotions around the ordeal rather than an honest attempt to point out flaws or discuss potential drawbacks with the current approach.
The alarmist take is jumping to the conclusion that people will starve from efforts to improve the code behind this system. We can still print paper checks, probably with a simple script in the worst case.
We're talking about payment system code, not AI targeting for drones. Changes can be reverted, transactions can be stopped, payments can be made other ways.
No they cannot, not legally, and certainly not in a timely manner.
There are simply no mechanisms in place to do what you're saying, nor does there appear to be any willingness to correct errors, given the desire to cut spending. Missed payments may be a feature, not a bug.
> nor does there appear to be any willingness to correct errors
> Missed payments may be a feature, not a bug.
> not legally, and certainly not in a timely manner.
Bad faith magic wand waving, these arguments do not have substance. People/bots are on a bandwagon against change many have been calling for years for. Our treasury system NEEDS an overhaul and there are much bigger problems with this admin to make an issue out of.
You say bad faith, but then you equivocate all "change" like any difference is good, or that Congress ought not be involved in the decisions related to how to spend government money, which is wildly unconstitutional.
He may be "SpaceX" (if that is supposed to mean super talented), but having a maximum of 1 weeks worth of knowledge about a system before starting to rewrite it seems extremely unsecure. This isn't a disposable rocket, this is a system that millions of people rely on.
These are some of the richest people debating whether to stop people from seeking to work elsewhere. Absolutely despicable. Hat's off to Palm for seeking the reasonably route.
