It is already the case in many Australian Courts and tribunals E.g. NSW Supremen Court [1] here is another tribunal [2]. Not sure why you would not like the disclosure as to how a document, statement, etc was made when the author was not the individual signing their name and may not represent their words, knowledge, beliefs etc.
I would like everybody to be completely responsible for the words they sign with their own name and present as their own. Regardless of how the words were produced.
You still will be. Disclosure of AI, helps the court know where to put you in the queue, compared to those that have actually understood the laws in hand. A matter of prioritisation, rather than responsibility.
You cannot surrender your legal obligations to an autonomous system, without violating the Commons. You would need to overturn several hundred years of legal precedent first.
As if the people utilizing the judiciary system before LLMs fully understood the laws themselves.
Give me a break. These are the talking points of the elite scared that the playing field is being leveled by technology. I'm on the side of technology on this one.
Australia, the land of LegalAid, is not some place of "elites" in law. Everyone has free access to a lawyer. Everyone has free access to the first consult with law firms.
There probably also won't be enough people to pay $30 per year to justify the salary of the people to maintain it. Microsoft tried that with Windows 10 and largely gave up outside of Corporations which they had by the gonads.
The group exploited a bug in WhatsApp to deliver the spyware. It wasn't an E2E issue.
> A U.S. judge ruled on Friday in favor of Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab WhatsApp in a lawsuit accusing Israel's NSO Group of exploiting a bug in the messaging app to install spy software allowing unauthorized surveillance.
There is certainly an economic utility to a more educated populous, but should that cost 30k+ in debt? If the ROI isn't there and the purpose is a general one for the economic benefit of the nation, shouldn't the taxpayer bear the cost of that?
This is actually the case where I live (the Netherlands). It has pros and cons of course, balancing of which has over time put some restrictions on the usage of the system (both subsidized college fees and separate study funding).
My understanding was that ads pay to be viewed, they can't get paid if you have it on background play and not watching. So they made it a premium feature and get paid by the subscription.
The Courts already have mechanisms to limit "unlimited" subpoenas or requests for discovery. Requests for the software source code or similar, bug reports, and other reports of issues are or would largely not be unreasonable where the key issue is reported thievery, fraud, and mismatched data based on software as the basis for the allegations and prosecution.
They do, but applications on these matters can easily overwhelm the financially weaker opponent. Interesting comment in one of the Post Office judgements:
"10. Finally, disclosure is very expensive. The court will be astute to guard against it becoming either satellite litigation or a weapon in the interlocutory arsenal."
Because there isn't much difference in the force between a 1m and a 8000m drop due to the above. So it really comes down to case, angle, and material onto which it was dropped with corners being more vulnerable.
There is. Dropping your phone follows a curve, it falling from 16,000ft it does not. There are more forces at play when you fumble your phone. They aren't necessarily stronger forces though...just more of them. Trajectory and spinning add different forces on top of gravity. There is also the catch attempt that invariably forces the phone down harder and changes the trajectory.
I believe the issue with Lovelace is that you may find less than PG results typing that on a search engine. Hence using Ada primarily on the marketing.
I think the complaint is more with the consumer card being 4xxx but this is 5000 both on the same architecture.
Yeah they have different naming conventions on the workstation cards;
Quadro RTX 4000
RTX A4000
RTX 4000 Ada
Unfortunately they’ve had 3 separate naming conventions in 3 successive generations. Those 4000 series cards are in the same position in the lineup for each generation.
I just went through this with our Dell rep. The generations aren't totally successive, if you count the non-Quadro RTX 4000 series, which is Ada generation but not part of the RTX 4000 Ada series.
Add to it the card variants, and there's a chance that you might still end up with the wrong part if your purchaser isn't careful.
The question would be, do you want to fight Disney lawyers to make the argument that your use was not as a trademark, represented as Disney, or that it might cause confusion? With or without a disclaimer.
I'm picking up on a lot of undertones in these comments and elsewhere something like an argument that while it may not technically be copyright infringement in 2024 onward, it will remain de facto off-limits simply from the threat of having to deal with lawsuits from Disney, no matter whether they're actually well-founded. What's missing from that argument is an acknowledgement that there are organizations for the public good that are more than willing to litigate over this (and happen to be bigger targets, too). Wikimedia, for example.
There is no DMCA analogue for trademarks, so, for example, YouTube has no obligation to automate trademark complaints or to resolve disputes between trademark owners and video creators, so almost every case will go through the court, and overloading courts with bogus cases can have consequences for them.
YouTube technically has no obligation to comply with DMCA takedown notices either; there is no direct financial penalty for failing to do so. Rather, the DMCA provides a "safe harbor" exempting YouTube from liability for infringement, then removes that safe harbor if they fail to comply with a takedown notice.
For trademarks, there simply is no safe harbor, and thus no conditions under which it can be removed. That means there isn't a codified process for YouTube to follow; but the stick they can be beaten with at the end of the day -- infringement litigation -- is the same in either case. You can bet they'll do what they can do avoid it.
[1] https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Proce... [2] https://www.pi.nsw.gov.au/resources/procedural-directions/pr...
reply