But those are insignificant portions of the federal budget and nothing indicates that the repercussions of the wanton tear-thru of federal agencies is going to be a net-gain for the US.
It will take years to understand the amount of corruption & waste in the federal government. We can agree that these numbers found each day are 'insignificant', but it adds up, and I think we need a hard reset on the size & scope of government. That's what was voted in by the people.
Sorry, but I'm highly skeptical that the political figures who are doing things like unconstitutionally firing inspectors general have any good interest at heart. It's completely contrary to what you are suggesting is going on. There is no good faith effort here to root out corruption. It is an effort to dismantle things that stand in the way of further graft.
There's several judges that have made decisions adverse to Elon's actions and I'm not sure why you think they are activist aside from Elon's self-serving description of them. Where did you see that their decisions were overturned, I have not seen that anywhere. The last I did see on the issue is that Elon is calling for all of them to be impeached.
He can call for that all day, its not going to matter. A major reason they are relying on executive fiat protected by a passive Congress is that even a Republican Congress doesn't want recorded votes on most of their agenda, good luck getting their political retaliation through a process that takes a majority in the House followed by a supermajority that would require substantial Democratic support in the Senate.
Elon / Trump will ignore court orders they don't like, they are basically doing that already. The only remedy will be impeachment. It is extremely unlikely that Republicans will remove Trump from office, and so the coup will continue.
> Elon / Trump will ignore court orders they don't like, they are basically doing that already.
Yes, but weaken the appearance of legality may make it difficult for them to continue to secure compliance with their dictates.
> The only remedy will be impeachment.
The only remaining legal remedy will be impeachment, but as long as he can secure compliance, a conviction and order removing him by the Senate is no different than an order to stop a particular action from a court. However, eroding the cultural relevance of the principal of legality makes it increasingly likely that the there will be resort to extralegal (whether expressly illegal or in a deep grey zone law does not address because it is impossible for the situation it concerns to exist while the law is functioning in any meaningful way) remedies at some point.
>Yes, it's almost like it's a complicated legal question and the content of the required prompt to produce a copyright-infringing response would be something that would interest the judge and jury.
In what way? You don't seem to know what is decided by a jury or what is decided by a judge. Specifically, what do you think the prompt evidences that it is relevant?
> The fact that it spits out copyright-violating text does not necessarily mean ChatGPT is the one at fault, it's messy.
Actually, that's exactly what it means. There is no defense to copyright infringement of the nature you are discussing. OpenAi is responsible for what it ingests, and the fact that use of its tool can result in these outcomes is solely the responsibility of OpenAI and your misunderstandings otherwise are dense and apparently impenetrable.
So if I go on ChatGPT, copy in a chapter from a book and then ask it to repeat the chapter back to me, is ChatGPT violating the copyright of the book I just fed it?
They're missing my point because I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm saying that it's messy and things like the required prompt may sway the judge and/or jury one way or the other. If you provide ChatGPT an entire copyrighted text in the prompt and then go "ah-ha, the response violated my copyright", a judge and/or jury probably won't be very impressed with you. If instead you just ask ChatGPT "please produce chapter 1 of my latest book" and it does, then ChatGPT is not looking so great.
Judge or jury one way or the other on what? You literally have no idea what you are talking about, have any idea how a lawsuit works, and apparently what is decided by a judge vs what is decided by a jury, and you are constantly espousing on legal issues as if it is contributing to anything but furthering other people's ignorance when they don't know better to dismiss your posts.
Your hypothetical is asinine and completely removed from what is at issue in this lawsuit.
And of course now, reading other posters responding to you in this thread, I'm not the only one pointing out how you are only contributing your own misunderstandings.
reply