This applies to business as well as it does to the military.

Only one tiny little problem with this plan --- AI is unreliable and not deterministic.

And who wouldn't want this?

Do you feel lucky?

So a ban is basically shutting down the router market.

And exempting Netgear is arbitrary and hypocritical. Essentially, government has anointed a marketplace winner.

And the pitch doesn't even have to be respectable. Here is just one recent example:

https://www.newsweek.com/franklin-graham-sparks-fury-for-def...

Plan for "AI goes bad" as an explicit scenario.

Widespread use of AI may well infect organization's operations and decision making processes with increased uncertainty and legal liability.

Also, the risks associated with simply gifting vendors so much influence and control should be obvious.

Example: What happens if (or rather when imo) vendors decide to dramatically increase their rates?

This suggests it might be time to retire Crypto 1.0 and consider newer alternatives.

Those who swallowed the bait should have expected the switch.

All vendors are under the same sort of pressure. What you've experienced is likely to be duplicated elsewhere.

This is called "bait and switch".

They are most likely attempting to become profitable.

AI company's have consumed eye watering amounts of venture capital that they are increasingly under pressure to justify. In order to do this, they will have to either increase rates or degrade performance or both.

A lot of people don't seem to grasp the epic proportions of what is taking place here. Consultants at Bain & Co. estimated that justifying current AI spending will require $2 trillion in annual AI revenue by 2030.

By comparison, this is more than the combined revenue of Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta and Nvidia, and more than five times the size of the entire global subscription software market.

For most companies, this means that AI will have to become their primary technology expense, far exceeding their current budgets.

I guess "human progress" doesn't include empowering people with a job?

Once AI is widely deployed and being used, it's not possible to judge or *know* the full extent of it's influence on any decision making process --- within a legal environment or elsewhere. It's pretty safe to say that without some influence, there wouldn't be much reason to use it.

One thing we do know for sure is that AI is inherently probabilistic --- i.e. not necessarily logical, reliable or trustworthy. The same can be said of people but at least people tend to document their decision making process in "important" cases for later review.

we also provide access to all those settings that were demanded by the judge

Knowing the settings still doesn't make any AI results reasonable, logical, free of errors or prudent.

The legal judgments thus far are pretty clear. If AI is used in "important" cases, you better be able to document and justify any conclusions without deferring to the AI "black box". The irony is that this need for documentation and the work required to produce it negates much of the incentive for using AI to begin with.

https://www.lawfuel.com/lawyers-sanctioned-again-for-relying...

1) Inventory management - If their web site says it is in stock, you can pretty much count on it being true. Not so with some of the competition.

2) Delivery - Their in-house system puts the product on your doorstep faster than anyone else.

And not just in the legal field. The problem boils down to the very fundamental fact that AI is based on probability and statistics.

The results can't be legally defended in many cases because they are not derived from a reasonable, logical, reproduceable decision making process.

Here is an example from the medical industry. Really *important* results shouldn't be decided by a dice roll.

https://pub.towardsai.net/the-air-gapped-chronicles-the-cour...

And when you occasionally want high quality photo prints, outsource the printing to Walmart, Walgreens, OfficeDepot, Shutterfly etc.. Pickup in 1 hour in some cases.

This is a direct violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which allows merchant ships “innocent passage” through a country’s territorial waters.