This is the right approach, but there’s lots of complexity around transcoding. In the courtroom that’s less of an issue if you can get the original unmodified outputs, but broader applications need to think through what it means to be “verified”
As always, the devil is in the details. They defined an AI system as software that uses any of:
(a) Machine learning approaches, including supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, using a wide variety of methods including deep learning;
(b) Logic- and knowledge-based approaches, including knowledge representation, inductive (logic) programming, knowledge bases, inference and deductive engines, (symbolic) reasoning and expert systems;
(c) Statistical approaches, Bayesian estimation, search and optimization methods.
That could very reasonably be interpreted to mean all software. The act is mostly concerned with high risk applications. These are based on intended use, which is obviously tricky in the context of general purpose LLM’s. Most of the covered intended uses make sense, but in combination with their definition above it could mean that, for example, any developer of EdTech software in the EU could be regulated under the act.
More broadly, the act was clearly not written with general purpose foundation models in mind. For example, Article 10 requires that all training data be “relevant, representative, free of errors and complete.” That is pretty much impossible to comply with if you’re training on The Pile or similar.
As someone with neither the background nor the mathematics to fully understand renormalization, I'll say that the wiki entry isn't terribly helpful:
"Renormalization, in this example, mathematically replaces the initially postulated mass and charge of an electron with the experimentally observed mass and charge."
That sure sounds like adding an arbitrary constant into your theory and turning the knob until the theory matches the results. The comments here suggest that's not the case, but it's easy for me to see where the skepticism comes from.
Artifacts have been periodically salvaged from the wreck between 1987-2000. RMS Titanic Corp now has title to those artifacts and has periodically talked about returning to the wreck to salvage more. The whole thing has been tied up in court cases since the 1987 expedition, which is par for the course with international maritime salvage.
The most interesting argument that I hadn't previously seen is that Musk's alleged breach of the agreement (non-disparagement, witholding consent, etc) may prevent him from terminating the deal even if Twitter has violated it (which they of course deny). Of course you have to take that with a big grain of salt given the source of the argument, but it's new to me at least.
I think this gets it a bit backwards. There has been a shortage of nurses for decades, and it’s getting worse. This is exacerbated by an aging population and restrictive immigration policies. Travel/agency nurses were supposed to be load balancers for a system with variable demand for labor, but for a variety of structural reasons agencies began to pay nurses more. This has prompted a landslide of nurses moving into agency work. Labor costs have risen accordingly, but fundamentally that’s driven by the shortage of supply. If you talk to administrators they will tell you that they hate relying on agencies but they have no viable alternatives. They can’t raise wages because they have little/no control over their own cost structure thanks to the screwed up way healthcare in the US works, and most hospitals are barely scraping by. There are no easy answers to this one, and blaming it on shortsighted administrators (of which there are many!) misses the larger context.
But what exactly is “the law?” It’s not like this stuff is cut and dried even within the US. Posted this elsewhere, but free speech laws are some of the trickiest legal issues we grapple with in the US, and many statues hinge on the intent behind the speech. How is Twitter supposed to implement this (hypothetical) new policy? Do they always give posters the benefit of the doubt? Seems ripe for abuse. Assume the worst? Probably more censorious than it is today. Punt to the courts? Great, moderation now takes years and costs thousands of dollars. What is the standard of proof to take down a tweet? Preponderance of the evidence? What evidence is admissible? Does Twitter just internally recreate the US trial court system to manage this? What about cross-border disputes? What about laws that directly conflict? What about international law? Treaties to which the US is not a party (eg Protocols I & II of the Geneva Convention)? If “following the law” were easy we wouldn’t have so many layers and judges
Sure, but that relies on someone’s ability to secure the court order. That takes days at minimum, possibly much longer. It costs money, possibly thousands of dollars or more. And what about cases that cross borders? Is someone from from South Africa supposed to seek injunctive relief from a U.S. court? Maybe this is better than the status quo ante, but it’s not obvious to me that that’s the case and it doesn’t seem like anyone is asking the hard questions.
There’s one obvious flaw in “Everything that isn’t illegal is allowed”: determining what is illegal. Free speech laws are some of the trickiest legal issues we grapple with in the US, and many statues hinge on the intent behind the speech. How is Twitter supposed to implement this (hypothetical) new policy? Do they always give posters the benefit of the doubt? Seems ripe for abuse. Assume the worst? Probably more censorious than it is today. Punt to the courts? Great, moderation now takes years and costs thousands of dollars. What is the standard of proof to take down a tweet? Preponderance of the evidence? What evidence is admissible? Does Twitter just internally recreate the US trial court system to manage this? Do they do that for every country? The point is, the law on these issues is complex and frequently requires significant interpretation. Maximalism is no silver bullet.
Seems like Tether’s questionable activity throws a massive wrench in this analysis. You can’t equate minting to flows if the biggest minter is (allegedly) just printing the things whenever they feel like it
They print a mold using water soluble filament, use the same arm for carbon fiber placement, and then rinse out the support after curing. Very useful for CF parts with complex geometry, primarily used in aerospace applications.