Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | oddmade's commentslogin

In essence...

Tax not paid by ultra wealthy goes back into he system as loans that extract interest that in turn is used to buy assets sold to pay for interest, those are then rented back to the system to extract more interest.

In essence by allowing no tax to be paid by the ultra wealthy, we facilitate the death of the middle class and transfer of everything to the very few - with mathematical precision.

Ultimately we need to ask ourselves why we have a society, what's it's purpose.

For the few or the many ?


While I probably prefer a society that is more "for the many", I can't exclude the possibility that some people have different preferences and would not want to impose my opinion.

Considering this, everybody might have to make (at some point in their lives) hard choices regarding where they choose to live. Yes, one should fight to improve the society one is living in, but there is also a saying "only the fool persists in their folly" ...


So much ignorance in this thread.

Quite staggering considering this is HN.

If you're upset by security vs privacy at airports - don't Google how cell phones and credit cards work...

..and for the love of sanity - don't ask yourself how often you did not bring a phone and only used cash during a trip abroad.

Good luck. Make sure you take your meds.

..if by any chance you DO want to educate yourself - the reality is - removal of airport security only benefits criminals and mad people looking to hurt you.

Privacy battles are fought elsewhere.


great example, there are like 50% of people that share yours point of view on the subject (cameras not bad), and another 50% who have the strict opposit opinion (cameras not good).

And each is usually hard to convince otherwise, and many judge the opposit group.

Me I dont care, I just want cheaper bottles of water in airport.


It's not cameras not good, it's face recognition not good. Because face recognition not good.


Face rec can be problematic if used with bad imagery and without proper oversight - agree.

Like all powerful tools it has to be used responsibly.

My point is merely that we are all tracked by other means that affect our life in much deeper and profound ways.

..like for example purchase history, cell phone location, internet use etc bought and sold by private corporations, with little to no oversight.


Cameras are mostly a threat to people that have to use burner phones and crypto at work.

If you want privacy, close your bank account, throw away your phone, use cash, don't own property, quit your day job etc etc

Worrying about cameras is naive at best.


Let me evolve that for you.

You should not only avoid appearance of impropriety, but also impropriety.


c-suite person here...my job is "influence to empower" my team and others - to unlock opportunity for the company I represent.

My advice would be: Stay honest with yourself. To influence IS to manipulate.

Playing squeamish is a slippery slope into avoiding accountability for your actions.

In other words - don't judge the tools - judge your motives and the outcome.

Accept there is always a trade and balance.

If you can be honest about your motives and actions with yourself your friends and colleagues - chances are that you can achieve your goals with ethics and empathy intact.

If you can't, then it's time to take a look at yourself - not the tools.

Good luck


I'll cancel my $100 / month Claude account the moment they decide to "approve my code"

Already got close to cancel when they recently updated their TOS to say that for "consumers" they deserve the right to own the output I paid for - if they deem the output not having been used "the correct way" !

This adds substantial risk to any startup.

Obviously...for "commercial" customers that do not apply - at 5x the cost...


https://www.copyright.gov/ai/

In the US, at least, the works generated by "AI" are not copyrightable. So for my layman's understanding, they may claim ownership, but it means nothing wrt copyright.

(though patents, trademarks are another story that I am unfamiliar with)


But along the same argument you may claim ownership, but it means nothing wrt copyright.

So you cannot stop them from using the code AI generated for you, based on copyright claims.


Wouldn't that mean everyone owns it then (wrt copyright)? Not just the generator and Anthropic?


It means the person who copyrighted it still has the copyright on it. However, using AI generated code in some project that passes the threshold of being copyrightable can be problematic and "the AI wrote it for me" isn't a defense in a copyright claim.


There's a difference between an AI acting on it's own, vs a person using AI as a tool. And apparently the difference is fuzzy instead of having a clear line somewhere.

I wonder if any appropriate-specialty lawyers have written publicly about those AI agents that can supposedly turn a bug report or enhancement request into a PR...


Can you elaborate on the expansion of rights in the ToS with a reference? That seems egregiously bad


https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms

"Subject to your compliance with our Terms, we assign to you all our right, title, and interest (if any) in Outputs."

..and if you read the terms you find a very long list of what they deem acceptable.

I see now they also added "Non-commercial use only. You agree not to use our Services for any commercial or business purposes" ...

..so paying 100usd a month for a code assistant is now a hobby ?


What is says there is

> Evaluation and Additional Services. In some cases, we may permit you to evaluate our Services for a limited time or with limited functionality. Use of our Services for evaluation purposes are for your personal, non-commercial use only.

In other words, you're not allowed to trial their services while using the outputs for commercial purposes.


Take a look at "11. Disclaimer of warranties, limitations of liability, and indemnity" there is a section about commercial use.


I really don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing about commercial use in section 11 (nor does the language you quoted above appear anywhere in the Searching "business" and "commercial" makes it easy to verify this).


Section 11 point 4 "agree not to use our Services for any commercial or business purposes"

I understand they want to limit their liability - so feel free to call me naive...

I'm just old school enough to think that if I buy a tool - I'd have the right to use it and enjoy the results

Imagine buying a bread knife and be told what bread you are allowed to slice ?

Pizza needs an extended license.

No pineapple allowed


> Section 11 point 4

You must be looking at something other than the terms of service you linked, because section 11 has no point numbering (and just in case, the fourth paragraph of section 11 says nothing of the sort).


..while their support chatbot claims commercial use is fine. Oh well


>This adds substantial risk to any startup.

If you're a startup are you not a "commercial" customer?


Well... ..in their TOS they seem to classify the 100usd / month Max plan a "consumer plan"


I think this is talking about the different tiers of subscription you can buy.


..and the legal terms attached - yes


They are already trolling for our prompting techniques, now they are lifting our results. Great.


THIS


Liberal values ?

That implies they had any to begin with.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: