You are misinformed, I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.
As I said, I do not know all legal systems in the world. If there one where "material gain" matches your idea, please cite the law or a case that includes LLM usage. As I explained in the canadian law even includes services and yet it is so much very much not matching the defintion for reasons explained.
I do understand very well what you mean by "fraud", I do not miss represent it - your opinion on what it should be is plain and simple wrong. I explained why in my previous posts.
You are under the impression that legal science is some kind of folk etymology. It absolutely is not. Fraud is §263 StGB, Art. 313-1 Code penal or §380 of the canadian criminal code. (They all are remarkably similar, because they share a millennia old tradition. Making them IMHO fascinating cultural artifacts.) Here [0] is a structured version of on of these texts. Think of it as a symbolic execution of the law. You can see there is structural mismatch with your "case". Nobody ubsurbs anything from somebody else, and all three laws incude that in their defintion. That was my original claim.
You think you somehow can make up your own private definitions, develop your own private theories about them, apply them and argue about the semantics your made up terms. That is the opposite of how jurisprudence works. It rigorous, with well established scientific and scholastic methods. It operates on term defined by the law. In the case of "fraud" the previous citations, especially in criminal law, and nothing else. German legal science has its own theory what counts as "nothing else" under the name "Wortlautgrenze".
These terms and methods vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but by surprisingly little.
Dont call your code a decorator pattern, because you think it is decorative. Different pattern libraries have definitions for that and you need to be able to argue it fits. Like wise, if you feel something involves some kind of misrepresentation its probably not fraud. If things have different names, that probably for a good reasons, especially in legal science.
In German and French (roman) legal systems this is a "Vermögensdelikt", and explicitly about material damage and gain. Yes, common law can be more broad (in canada it isn't really, it just also includes service, btw.), and yet it clearly does not meet the definition, as there is a damaged/defraued party and fraudulent/gaining party. We are not talking about somebody usurping somebody else reputation, after all.
You misuse a technical term that is well established since antiquity.
You do not know what this word means. If you want to argue about semantics, look up the definition. This works especially well for legal terms as laws define them.
(That said, IANAL and there are very many different legal systems and I am not ruling out there exists one that is competently different - laws can be changed a will, after all.)
It is also obviously not copyright infringement, because this is simply not how copyright works, at all. I cannot and will explain of all copyright here. Instead I will point this out: Every code produced by a human who read copyrighted code would fall under your definition.
I'm very certain that this is not fraud, across multiple legal systems, both roman and common law. In both cases fraud requires a person is deprived of a material good. Neither the defrauded person or their material loss is present in this case. Maybe there is a oddball legal system somewhere in the world where fraud is something entirely different, but i doubt it. "Fraud", just like "Decorator Pattern" is a well established concept and pretty simple concept, even if there are edge cases. This does not fit at all.
In academia this is miss-attribution, outside of academia this does not exist.
This is clearly not not copyright infringement either as LLMs do not claim copyright, nor could they. Just like the photograph taken by the monkey, or pictures drawn by crows. LLM output is not a creative work either.
If this is unethical or immoral is a totaly different question. I really dont think so and I dont think you argue that position well.
I think this is a meme in marketing departments, but not actually true.
For the longest time ICE car makers build cars that screamed "electric". They mostly where behind expectations. At that time the by far most successful EV brand was Tesla with the USP that their cars looked like cars, while the EV from the competition looked like video game asserts; the BMW EVs from that time where among the most ugly cars i have ever seen.
Now this has reversed. The current EVs from VW, Mercedes and BMW, Renault, Dacia, Fiat all look normal. The ordinary-looking BMW iX3 has a long waiting list since launch, VWs boring ID-cars are doing better than ever. Tesla has released the cybertruck that screams "electric" and is a sales disaster.
My personal conspiracy theory is that the ICE divisions wanted to prevent EVs cannibalizing their market and they pushed for ugliness or "differentiation".
People want cars to look like cars. This is tautologically true, but manufactures needed quite some time to figure that out.
This is historic. To put this into perspective for people how to not follow running: This is about about as big as "derGrobe" beating the one-minute-mark in 4b2c.
I disagree. The plug is usually part of an appliance connector cable, that has no idea what happens to be on the other side aswell. If you size that cable for the same current as the socket, the cable itself is protected by the circuit breaker.
The correct spot for the fuse is the appliance itself. Fuses used to be easily replaceable, often with fuse holders [1]. I have, however, never seen a computer with one.
I feel like the humanoid form is getting in the way for that, and that a "Spot" like design with a hand on top is better suited for that. Also i think laundry and dishes are already 95% automated since about 50 years.
"Tech" was incredible light on CapExp compared with everything else (until AI hit, that is). That is what allowed its explosive growth. On the one hand alphabet is not used to that. On the other hand it is turning into a more normal business with more CapExp, and like other more "normal" business it uses more external investment. As a general rule of thumb: The more capex, the more leverage; for example commodity extraction, infrastructure or power generation are very capex heavy, and heavily leveraged.
Roads are not solving transportation, they are closer to a sophisticated trace track. Roads are a constrained Operational Design Domain:
- Geofenced areas
- pre-build structures
- Curated infrastructure
- fallback to gravel in times of the inevitable event of maintenance.
This is not general transportation, it is a highend infrastructure inside a controlled environment. The system degrades exactly where humans/horses do not: River crossings, Creeks, steep hillsides, marshes, beaches.
A river flooding a road is not and "edge case", it a usual occurrence, and a problem that roads do robustly solve. It works due to extensive maintenance, not because the asphalt can actually deal with water.
Scaling that beyond a few mapped US suburbs into Europe is a totally different problem. Dont get fooled by Wall Street stock pumping.
The interview started with the most mundane question "Who are you?", and the very first sentence of Wales is either a lie or misleading. The journalists asks for clarification (thats a journalists job, btw), and in his second sentence of the interview Wales insults the journalist. I'm pretty sure who is the jerk here.
It also was Wales who bought up the topic, not the journalist. If he considers it a stupid topic he does not want to talk about, why is it the very first thing he talks about?
>(This is probably because Google Maps can be used for walking/biking too)
Please don't do that. The map is simply not good enough and does not have enough context (road quality, terrain, trail difficulty) for anything but very causal activity. Even then I highly recommend to use a proper map, electronic or paper.
Arabic, even. An outlier, as it is AFAIK the only arabic dialect that is not written with the arabic alphabet. Also it's far removed from other arabic dialects.
As I said, I do not know all legal systems in the world. If there one where "material gain" matches your idea, please cite the law or a case that includes LLM usage. As I explained in the canadian law even includes services and yet it is so much very much not matching the defintion for reasons explained.
I do understand very well what you mean by "fraud", I do not miss represent it - your opinion on what it should be is plain and simple wrong. I explained why in my previous posts.
You are under the impression that legal science is some kind of folk etymology. It absolutely is not. Fraud is §263 StGB, Art. 313-1 Code penal or §380 of the canadian criminal code. (They all are remarkably similar, because they share a millennia old tradition. Making them IMHO fascinating cultural artifacts.) Here [0] is a structured version of on of these texts. Think of it as a symbolic execution of the law. You can see there is structural mismatch with your "case". Nobody ubsurbs anything from somebody else, and all three laws incude that in their defintion. That was my original claim.
You think you somehow can make up your own private definitions, develop your own private theories about them, apply them and argue about the semantics your made up terms. That is the opposite of how jurisprudence works. It rigorous, with well established scientific and scholastic methods. It operates on term defined by the law. In the case of "fraud" the previous citations, especially in criminal law, and nothing else. German legal science has its own theory what counts as "nothing else" under the name "Wortlautgrenze". These terms and methods vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but by surprisingly little.
Dont call your code a decorator pattern, because you think it is decorative. Different pattern libraries have definitions for that and you need to be able to argue it fits. Like wise, if you feel something involves some kind of misrepresentation its probably not fraud. If things have different names, that probably for a good reasons, especially in legal science.
[0] https://www.iurastudent.de/schemata/schema-zum-betrug-263-i-...