In a letter to the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, Sanders writes that almost every day brings a new story about how these companies are losing...
Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes.
you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it’s a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it’s not magically not a crime if they aren’t sued over it.
Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol
I’ll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it’s a fact. You can be accused of literally anything.
I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn’t working.
Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not.
We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that’s up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes?
That breathtakingly wrong. Yikes.
Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes.
Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore??
You can’t just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell.
you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it’s a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it’s not magically not a crime if they aren’t sued over it.
So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you’re a thief?
Think this through.
So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again.
Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol
I’ll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it’s a fact. You can be accused of literally anything.
I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn’t working.
Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not.
We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that’s up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes?