RI Smith

It's a high crime area without cognizable crimes. Or anyone running. But don't think about that.

Rosemary appears to have been fine before they stole her soul for not being as smart as the rest of the family.

It would, for example, mean government works are not expressive.

Separating with an honorable discharge but being denied benefits? Good luck winning that one, assholes.

How did it end up like this?

Practically, sure, no defendant so who cares. But curious from the standpoint of whose expression something is at the limits.

As a thought experiment, what happens if only one person creates a random word generator, dies without heirs, but the product continues to be used? Is it still the creator's expression?

I don't think he counted on his appeal having to focus on his sanctions.

And you know what is really hard to do? Start producing breast milk once you have stopped. Feeding the parents doesn't save the infants.

The Supreme Court's renewed love of protecting children from "bad" speech gives me pause about the potential for liability when minors are involved, but I imagine that will inevitably lead the same way to age verification as used for other "bad" speech.

The comparisons to Fox News et al. are well taken and I think that's likely to be what stops theories of negligence and even some cases alleging wantoness or intentional conduct. Warranties will always be harder to escape, but that's why boilerplate exists.

Ultimately, I think the biggest issue for these cases will be proximate cause, which I also think the first amendment to limits substantially more than other products cases. That there is no physical product to malfunction *does* matter because it leaves this purely in the world of speech.

It's a good question, but I don't see any way of avoiding joint and several liability. Empty chair is always available if someone is let out, but naming everyone makes it a jury question.

I think we mostly agree on how this would shake out in practice, I'm just trying to work through the setups of how it theoretically could apply. This is extremely unlikely to happen and this couldn't happen are very different questions.

It's no one's speech until it is used to express something, in this case, the random numbers being generated. If I count out loud how many cars pass my house, I am not expressing my thoughts about the cars and I am dependent on an outside factor to prompt my speech, but it's still my expression.

An employer can be liable for its employee's speech, even if it didn't directly approve of what the employee said. That doesn't make the speech in question non-expressive and both have an interest in whether it was protected, but that doesn't remove the potential for liability.

Neither of which shield the individual speakers from liability for defamation or fraud.

Specifying one way in which the argument fails is not evidence that I have abandoned my other arguments.

That's getting to the distinction of puffery versus warranties. They aren't just claiming it is a "truth machine." They've specified specific fields where it can provide accurate information. There is a line where the courts do cross this threshold and the first amendment no longer offers protection

No, they frequently don't, which is how they won the case referenced in your discussion elsewhere. But the publisher's lack of liability does not similarly protect the author. LLMs are machines that produce outputs whose sole drafter is the company. There is no empty chair left.

You don't think "this gives you accurate information" is a warranty? As my initial setup suggested, that would not fly in the case of a physical product that had inaccurate outputs. Is the sole basis of this argument the first amendment and head fake at puffery?

You sure about that? Or were you referring to it being software that is marketed as a service?

I'd be pretty upset if the PhD experts were falsifying citations and making up quotes that don't exist. I guess they had a mail order Ph.D.

Which of my claims do you believe is unsupported?

These companies knowingly market their products with claims that would lead a reasonable person to believe they are capable of doing things they cannot. This can and has harmed users. The question, again, is whether they are exempt from the products liability theories that would normally apply?

LLMs are products marketed for commercial purposes. They are sold under the guise of software as a service. The makers of LLMs make claims about their abilities that frequently fly past puffery into implied warranties. They routinely fail to live up to these warranties.

You can't expect a guy whose greatest legal accomplishment is getting another lawyer on his team to shout the N-word during a trial to be able to spell.

If I advertise my product as being able to diagnose diseases, say from a minute amount of blood, and it can't, I can be sued for breach of warranty, fraud, and other products liability theories. Are you arguing that companies that sell software as a service are not susceptible to similar liability?

If he can't even buy a suit that fits, decorations were going to be a big ask.

Men also shopping in the convenience store has robbed me of the opportunity to have a profoundly intimate moment with my daughter as we buy pads.