Eye roll 🙄
I can’t tell what’s more redundant, the text, the emoji, or the comment altogether.
Your comment is also redundant insofar it’s pointing to an obvious redundancy. But, then, this comment of mine is also redundant insofar it’s pointing to a redundant pointing of redundancy. I can’t tell what’s more redundant, your comment, my comment, their comment or the redundant redundancy of redundancy itself, or the redundant redundancy of the redundant re…
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
What’s idiotic is that OpenAI broke the law, got caught, and was successful enough in turning it into a marketing stunt (aimed at investors) that other companies want to do it too.
With this precedent, all you need to do in order to get away with hacking is to change your user agent to something an AI agent uses. /s
This is why we need personal accountability by C-suites in regards to company misgivings. Yes companies are legally entities but we need like, 50% of the accountability is shared by the C-suites either as a group, or if they have it in writing for a specific thing, by a specific one, the CEO or CTO or whatever.
A person. So there’s a very real example of the personal risk to freedom or wealth (the second will hit investors more I presume) if you do this.
Plus I have a feeling that the moment it’s their ass on the line, these C-fuckers will, surprisingly, agree to do this shit less often.
Nah. With rules like this, no one could ever do anything. I mean the pizza shop on the corner couldn’t operate. Who would risk their home (if they’re lucky enough to have one) just to not make any money running a restaurant?
Directors et cetera can be held accountable for criminal negligence with the current rules, it’s just that they rarely are, because we have a “captured state” - a government and judicial arm that’s terrified of upsetting the corporations that get them elected.
The solution IMO is disallowing corporate campaign donations, and capping personal donations. Also harsher penalties for the corporations themselves, rather than just “cost of doing business” penalties.
funny thing is about this comment is something like 50% of resturaunts go bust within the first couple years, yet new people keep opening them.
I thought I kind of implied that?
There’s risk in any business. Being smart and working hard isn’t enough. Sometimes you just at get unlucky.
I know fediverse users hate corporations, and there’s a lot to hate, but the idea of individuals protecting themselves from those risks is a critical element of a modern economy.
But limited liability allows risk taking to occur.
The liability that is limited is that of the directors. The C-suite are fair game.
Well today I learn. I was under the impression that c-suite are protected but licensed professionals get liability.
It’s likely varies over jurisdiction. Directors often offer the CEO the opportunity to tender their resignation though when a head needs to roll.
They all play are same golf club afterall.
Reminder that this in the past this kind of thing has lead to such legal persecution that both Jonathan James aged 24, and Aaron Swartz aged 26, both committed suicide because of it.
Aaron Swartz’ crime? Downloading scholarly articles from JSTOR to distribute to the public.
Now we have multi-billion dollar corporations doing these things, but several times worse, and they’re bribing politicians and running countries!
it’s class war all the way down.
Can’t use a computer for recreation would prob = suicide for me too
