Sounds like a fatal problem. That's a shame.
charonn0
joined 2 years ago
Which is exactly why the output of an AI trained on copyrighted inputs should not be copyrightable. It should not become the private property of whichever company owns the language model. That would be bad for a lot more reasons than the potential for laundering open source code.
The part that you're apparently having trouble understanding is that a language model is not a human mind and a human mind is not a language model.
If it's not infringement to input copyrighted materials, then it's not infringement to take the output.
Copyright can be enforced at both ends or neither end, not one or the other.
It wouldn't. The 14th specifically says Congress can remove the insurrection disqualification.
Congress should pass a resolution removing Trump's disqualification.
That would satisfy the 14th amendment without setting a nasty political precedent while at the same time serving as an official recognition that Trump committed acts that triggered the 14th amendment.
Congress can only remove the disqualification, they can't impose it.
It's a problem that the amendment doesn't tell us how it's supposed to work, but the fact that other disqualifying factors (age, residency, etc.) are determined by the states suggests that the states can determine disqualification on the insurrection factor too, and through the same procedural mechanisms.
Requiring a conviction in the first place is the special treatment I'm referring to.
Disqualification is not a criminal penalty. If it were then it could be removed by a presidential pardon.
Instead it can only be removed by Congress--a body that is specifically prohibited from passing laws that set or alter someone's criminal liability.
Why should he be treated any differently than anyone else that was disqualified under the 14th amendment?
Which is why it's a batshit insane idea.