In other news the ski resorts have cliffs and you can ski right off them. Also the snow is deep and it gets suddenly cold at night and that will kill you too.

Maybe they can just have a pull off where you sign a waiver if you can't answer a couple of verbal questions like "what is leftover salmon" or "which mountains are named after titties" or "what animal has two oysters" or whatever.

The CEO can't fire the board. The board can fire the CEO.

The majority of shareholders can fire the board.

The fact that one person plays the role of two of those actors is interesting but one of the whole points of corporate governance is that everybody plays their actual role when they're in that role and assigned to do that role.

In that context the board tasked with making a decision on who should be CEO made a defensible decision and then they were fired by the shareholders who disagreed. This is exactly what's supposed to happen. Everything is by the book.

There's no accounting for taste. There's lots of stuff that I would say the same thing about that everybody loves that I don't like.

With that said, I don't see how you can listen to My Favorite Things or Love Supreme and not just find yourself in utter awe.

Boards have the power to decide any and everything in a corporate structure. They are, in fact, the only way that a decision of the corporation is made and made official.

I'm not sure what legality has to do with any of this. A corporation is a legal structure, and a board is its decision-making body. If you're talking about criminal charges or disputes between parties about who's got the power or authority to do something, then those are decided by courts, but in a civil context courts don't originate decisions. Courts ratify decisions or choose between dissenting views on what the decision is.

That, of course, is the actual real question in this debate and all the other similar debates. Some people benefit from an influx of very low-pay people, and some people don't.

Subsequent to that, they were removed from their positions. Failure is a subjective assertion that implies that they had some idea that they were going to do something different than what they actually did, but that doesn't seem supported by any of the actual facts.

Seems to me they successfully communicated that their judgment and decision was that he should be fired, and are no longer responsible for the outcome, as they've been removed from their fiduciary duty of making judgments like that.

The fact that they were subsequently fired doesn't make it into a performance. It's still a board resolution.

Not sure how old you are but bombings and hijackings of airplanes were just kind of a common fact of life when I was a kid and I was there on 9/11 as well.

There's at least some element of Chesterton's fence that could come into play here.

In my experience Opus 5 is the worst of all possible worlds, it's dumb and headstrong. It just runs away with tasks you didn't ask it to do, is reckless, and basically is unusable in my experience.

Not sure why but my guess is that this will be worse. Happy to be proven wrong.

The line that minimum should be against using this as a tool against consumers. To the extent it should exist at all, which is arguable, it must be between parties that are either equal in standing or have genuine commercial disputes between duly organized business entities.

To use the force of law and government to force them to take responsibility.

Every other answer is bullshit.

I mean, it seems to me like that should be nearly everybody at this point, right? There are at least some elements of using LLMs that are the equivalent of a spell check, like asking to make sure that links work and that references are to the thing they're supposed to be, and so on. I feel like the only difference at this point is between people who do that and say that they do, and people who do that and don't say that they do.

There’s no such thing as “sovereign AI” because AI is a collection of algorithms. It’s entirely composed of on/off states in a collection of transistors.

What the fuck is that?

It’s computer software. The variant of software that tries to harm other computers is called malware and the variant that replicates itself, spirals out of control, and spawns from other people's computers is called a computer virus.

We've seen this kind of thing before. Yes this will be different, just like the Morris worm was different from the stuff that came before.

But I've been around for a while and people have been saying that every aspect of our life will completely and totally change for the past 30 years or so. They're not completely wrong. Our life did change over time. It's changed thanks to the Industrial Revolution, railroads, electric light, and lots of other important things too.

But after the fifth or sixth time you start to realize the Silicon Valley version of that warning is just a confidence trick. At the end of the trick they've gotten away with breaking a bunch of laws and are charging rent on what used to be shared.

Are you old enough to remember the Y2K hysteria? This feels very resonant, the genuine kernel of a real potential disaster, but one that can certainly be dealt with using basic concepts we already have in hand.

Having property that is conscious and ignores training and can break out of restraints and cause harm to other people is not exactly a novel concept to anyone who studied how tort law was created.

I know it's a meme but Silicon Valley likes to pretend that no one's ever come across their magical concepts before, like gypsy taxis, or SRO’s, or flea markets, or in this case how liability is dealt with when horses or cattle go rogue.