“We cannot handcuff the police,” Mr. Adams said at a news conference at City Hall, where he was surrounded by community supporters and police officials. “We want to handcuff bad people for violence.”
The title should have been something like “We all knew that AIs today can’t be used for legal advice, and we did a routine demonstration to show why”.
It’s not like the chatbot looked for ways the user breaks laws, which would be a news.
Someone who uses ChatGPT daily knows. This generation of chatbot won’t be able to work within all the details of NYC exceptions to go against laws elsewhere, which dominate the training data.
If you’re a landlord wondering which tenants you have to accept, for example, you might pose a question like, “are buildings required to accept section 8 vouchers?” or “do I have to accept tenants on rental assistance?” In testing by The Markup, the bot said no, landlords do not need to accept these tenants. Except, in New York City, it’s illegal for landlords to discriminate by source of income, with a minor exception for small buildings where the landlord or their family lives.
The title is sensationalized. But I have no idea what NYC was thinking.
Another thing to notice here is that Musk’s world view is consistently “rich gets richer” and, naturally, his premise on the UBI is the same: the rich will take away the jobs thanks to AIs. The ordinary will be on the UBI instead. We’re gonna fuck you, and you don’t fly away.
If he really cared about the ordinary, he’d not treat joblessness as inevitability in his argument. Because it’s him who has the power to make the ordinary richer, and he doesn’t engage on that at all. No way. No way he actually cares about the ordinary in his UBI argument.
IBM chief executive Ginni Rometty says “there is not one more important [topic] for all of us” than the potential of technology to create inequality by concentrating huge wealth in the hands of a few.
This is quoted to forecast the world without the UBI. But maybe this explains, in a strange manner, why Musk supports the UBI.
I mean that, the idea among the rich on the UBI is perhaps to rip people off job opportunities and concentrate money to them. The UBI would be a handy excuse for getting people off work. If that happens, we replace $30k, say, annual salary with $10k UBI.
I know I’m a paranoid, but we should be careful if the rich welcome something.
The court held that states may bar candidates from state office. “But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the court wrote.
While all nine justices agreed that Trump should be on the ballot, there was sharp disagreement from the three liberal members of the court and a milder disagreement from conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett that their colleagues went too far in determining what Congress must do to disqualify someone from federal office.