undefined | Better HN

0 pointsiudqnolq3y ago0 comments

One of the core principles of the American system of government is that we outsource enforcement to private parties. Instead of the public needing to fund enforcement with tax dollars private parties undertake risky litigation in exchange for the chance of a big payoff.

There is a reasonable argument that's a horrible system. But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit - the entire system has been set up such that that's what they're supposed to do. If you're angry about it lobby for either no rules or properly funded government enforcement of rules.

0 comments

lovich3y ago

> But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit…

I don’t know man, I can simultaneously see the systemic issue that needs to be solved and also critique someone for subcoming to base needs like greed when they don’t have the need.

MikePlacid3y ago

But the need is obviously there. Everyone who produces the following code in a non-university environment - for a fee! - needs to be punished quickly and severely:

Based on the given prompt, [Codex] produced the following response:

     function isEven(n) {

       if (n == 0)

         return true;

       else if (n == 1)

         return false;

       else if (n < 0)

         return isEven(‐n);

       else

         return isEven(n ‐ 2);

     }

     console.log(isEven(50));

     // → true

     console.log(isEven(75));

     // → false

     console.log(isEven(‐1));

     // → ??**

CobrastanJorji3y ago

What they're doing is a service, though. Say that $10 million worth of damage against others has been done. If the law firm does not act, the villainous curs who caused that damage get to keep their money and are incentivized to do it again. If the law firm does act and prevails, then the villains lose their ill-gotten gains (in favor of the law firm and, sometimes, to an extent, the injured parties). That's preferable. Not ideal, but certainly better than nothing.

lovich3y ago

That implies it’s a service I want, which I have not decided on in this situation. Either way I was more arguing with the other posters claim that it “didn’t make sense” to critique this move, which I think is factually incorrect since I can come up with a few plausible situations where it does make sense

1 more reply

ssteeper3y ago

Is a startup founder looking for a big payout succumbing to greed?

These people are just following incentives.

lovich3y ago

People following financial incentives are being greedy, this is how we got “greed is good” as a phrase

celestialcheese3y ago

That's entirely fair - and I'm not angry, just not convinced in their arguments, especially when the motive is likely not genuine.

As an aside - I'm almost positive MSFT/Github expected this and their legal teams have been prepping for this moment. Copyright Law and Fair Use in the US is so nuanced and vague that anything created involving prior art by big-pocket individuals or corporations will be litigated swiftly.

I expected one of these lawsuits to come first from Getty or one of the big money artist estates against OpenAI or Stability.ai, but Getty and OpenAI seem to be partnering instead of litigating.

onlycoffee3y ago

It's the two words, "government enforcement", that bothers me. If your party is in control the words sound fine, otherwise, they sound ominous.

nicoburns3y ago

Are you against policing? Because that's government enforcement. Admittedly policing in the US is god awful, but I still think most people would rather have it than no police force at all.

Government enforcement of this kind of law is really no different. It wouldn't be the legislature doing it.

falcolas3y ago

In an ideal situation, the enforcement would be managed by boring employees who don’t much care who’s in power, since they’re not appointed.

AKA a vast majority of the non-legislative government workers.

thaumasiotes3y ago

> If you're angry about it lobby for either no rules or properly funded government enforcement of rules.

No, there are plenty of other changes you might want to see.

For example, in the American system, judges are generally not allowed to be aware of anything not mentioned by a party to the case. There is no good reason for this.

iudqnolqOP3y ago

Nope!

Take a look at "judicial notice" and "amicus curiae".

cube003y ago

Sounds like healthcare

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lovich3y ago

> But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit…

I don’t know man, I can simultaneously see the systemic issue that needs to be solved and also critique someone for subcoming to base needs like greed when they don’t have the need.

MikePlacid3y ago

But the need is obviously there. Everyone who produces the following code in a non-university environment - for a fee! - needs to be punished quickly and severely:

Based on the given prompt, [Codex] produced the following response:

     function isEven(n) {

       if (n == 0)

         return true;

       else if (n == 1)

         return false;

       else if (n < 0)

         return isEven(‐n);

       else

         return isEven(n ‐ 2);

     }

     console.log(isEven(50));

     // → true

     console.log(isEven(75));

     // → false

     console.log(isEven(‐1));

     // → ??**

CobrastanJorji3y ago

lovich3y ago

1 more reply

ssteeper3y ago

Is a startup founder looking for a big payout succumbing to greed?

These people are just following incentives.

lovich3y ago

People following financial incentives are being greedy, this is how we got “greed is good” as a phrase

celestialcheese3y ago

That's entirely fair - and I'm not angry, just not convinced in their arguments, especially when the motive is likely not genuine.

I expected one of these lawsuits to come first from Getty or one of the big money artist estates against OpenAI or Stability.ai, but Getty and OpenAI seem to be partnering instead of litigating.

onlycoffee3y ago

It's the two words, "government enforcement", that bothers me. If your party is in control the words sound fine, otherwise, they sound ominous.

nicoburns3y ago

Are you against policing? Because that's government enforcement. Admittedly policing in the US is god awful, but I still think most people would rather have it than no police force at all.

Government enforcement of this kind of law is really no different. It wouldn't be the legislature doing it.

falcolas3y ago

In an ideal situation, the enforcement would be managed by boring employees who don’t much care who’s in power, since they’re not appointed.

AKA a vast majority of the non-legislative government workers.

thaumasiotes3y ago

> If you're angry about it lobby for either no rules or properly funded government enforcement of rules.

No, there are plenty of other changes you might want to see.

For example, in the American system, judges are generally not allowed to be aware of anything not mentioned by a party to the case. There is no good reason for this.

iudqnolqOP3y ago

Nope!

Take a look at "judicial notice" and "amicus curiae".

cube003y ago

Sounds like healthcare

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse