Reading through the opinion, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this ruling come up in defense of chatbots trained on copyrighted works.

A provider induces infringement if it actively encourages
infringement through specific acts. Grokster, 545 U. S., at
942 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). For example, in Grokster,
we held that a jury could find two file-sharing software com-
panies liable for inducement. Id., at 941 (majority opinion).
The companies promoted and marketed their software as a
tool to infringe copyrights. Id., at 926. The “principal ob-
ject” of their business models “was use of their software to
download copyrighted works.”

“Sure, it can rip off copyrighted works, but your honor, we pinky promise that was never our principal object”. I could see it flying. Interestingly enough, the US Solicitor General explicitly brought up DMCA safe harbor in its amicus brief (siding with Cox):

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (17 U.S.C. 512), gave
service providers, including ISPs, a safe-harbor defense
to claims of copyright infringement. That defense
shields ISPs from liability for copyright infringement
based on, among other things, “the provider’s transmit-
ting, routing, or providing connections for, material
through a system or network controlled or operated by
or for the service provider.” 17 U.S.C. 512(a). To qual-
ify for that safe harbor, the service provider must
“adopt[] and reasonably implement[] * * * a policy that
provides for the termination in appropriate circum-
stances of subscribers * * * who are repeat infringers.”

I’d expect this admin to brief the court in a way that favors Musk et al, and it kind of makes sense that you’d want to bolster safe harbor protections, but I imagine a safe harbor defense of LLMs would require the reasonable policy of not training your LLM on a bunch of copyrighted works without their permission, with the express intent of creating derivative works on demand for your paying clients.

Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf

US SG amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-171/359730/20250527172556075_Cox-Sony.CVSG.pdf

Right, i mean if you made the context window enormous, such that you can include the entire set of embeddings and a set of memories (or maybe, an index of memories that can be “recalled” with keywords) you’ve got a self-observing loop that can learn and remember facts about itself. I’m not saying that’s AGI, but I find it somewhat unsettling that we don’t have an agreed-upon definition. If a for-profit corporation made an AI that could be considered a person with rights, I imagine they’d be reluctant to be convincing about it.

Yeah I think for it to be a proper strange loop (if that is indeed a useful proxy for consciousness-- I think there’s room for debate on that) it would need to be able to take it’s entire “self” i.e. the whole model, weights, and all memories, as input in order to iterate on itself. I agree that it probably wouldn’t work for the current commercial applications of LLMs, but it not what being what commercial LLMs do, doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done for research purposes.

There’s no reason an LLM couldn’t be hooked up to a database, where it can save outputs and then retrieve them again to “think” further about them. In fact, any LLM that can answer questions about previous prompts/responses has to be able to do this. If you prompted an LLM to review all of it’s database entries, generate a new response based on that data, then save that output to the database and repeat at regular intervals, I could see calling that a kind of thinking. If you do the same process but with the whole model and all the DB entries, that’s in the region of what I’d call a strange loop. Is that AGI? I don’t think so, but I also don’t know how I would define AGI, or if I’d recognize it if someone built it.

Yeah the electoral college is a weird, poorly constructed indirect democracy. I think we should do away with it. Still, electors are elected by the state votes, and congressional representatives (state and national) are elected directly. I think there’s plenty to criticize about the American system, but to go from “it’s got serious problems” to “it’s not a democracy” seems like too far a reach for me. Elections still have consequences in America, and as long as that’s true I think its still technically a democracy.

I think what you’re describing is usually called direct democracy. If that’s the only kind of democracy you think is real democracy, I guess we’ll have to differ. I think there’s nothing inherently undemocratic about having elected representatives perform certain functions. I think at some scale it helps to have middle layers more than it hurts. That’s not to say direct democracy wouldn’t be preferable, I don’t know that I have a well-formed opinion on that. But if a system has consequential elections, no matter the structure of the government they elect, I’d call that a democracy.

I’ve definitely seen the “Now the Presidential elections are over, time to immediately focus on the midterms” variations that come about every four years, but they’re usually calls to action, not “just sit back and relax, the system is working as intended”. That… honestly just sounds like technically bad propaganda. If propaganists can’t get their targets in a rage about something, they’re leaving them open to someone who can.

I don’t think Mamdani is perfect, but I have a hard time believing his policies were decided on by the ruling class. Will they fight the implementation of those policies? Of course they will. Those with a need for power will never concedes an inch. That doesn’t mean that wasn’t a free and fair election decided by the people of NYC.

Also, IDK what propaganda machine you’re listening to but I have never heard anyone, of any political stripe, tell me “everything will be fine after the midterms”.

The US was never a democracy.

Of course America is a democracy. A flawed, and corruptible, and racist, democracy. Why do you think the right wing has to maintain such an enormous propaganda machine? Why do you think Republicans are clutching their pearls over the Iran war, and the spike in gas prices? It’s because they need votes. They need votes because they don’t have full control of the government apparatus, yet. That’s why they’re freaking out about the midterms, because they still don’t have their power fully cemented.

Yes, the supreme court is corrupted by the moneyed class. So are the lower courts, so is the congress, so is the executive. The same is true for state and local governments at every level. What about that makes it not a democracy? What democracy hasn’t had their institutions challenged, their power threatened, by the powerful? Of course they will try. They’ve been trying to hoard and amass power since day one, and when one falls, another power-hungry would-be tyrant will be next in line to try to seize more than their share. We do our best to stop them, sometimes more successfully than others. That’s democracy.

Can’t wait for Iranian Hostage Crisis 2: Somehow the Same Generation. Cool cool cool.

This is in some ways an easier problem than classifying LLM vs non-LLM authorship. That only has two possible outcomes, and it’s pretty noisy because LLMs are trained to emulate the average human. Here, you can generate an agreement score based on language features per comment, and cluster the comments by how they disagree with the model. Comments that disagree in particular ways (never uses semicolons, claims to live in Canada, calls interlocutors “buddy”, writes run-on sentences, etc.) would be clustered together more tightly. The more comments two profiles have in the same cluster(s), the more confident the match becomes. I’m not saying this attack is novel or couldn’t be accomplished without an LLM, but it seems like a good fit for what LLMs actually do.

Why not? if LLMs are good at predicting mean outcomes for the next symbol in a string, and humans have idiosyncrasies that deviate from that mean in a predictable way, I don’t see why you couldn’t detect and correlate certain language features that map to a specific user. You could use things like word choice, punctuation, slang, common misspellings, sentence structure… For example, I started with a contradicting question, I used “idiosyncrasies”, I wrote “LLMs” without an apostrophe, “language features” is a term of art, as is “map” as a verb, etc. None of these are indicative on their own, but unless people are taking exceptional care to either hyper-normalize their style, or explicitly spiking their language with confounding elements, I don’t see why an LLM wouldn’t be useful for this kind of espionage.

I wonder if this will have a homogenizing effect on the anonymous web. It might become an accepted practice to communicate in a highly formalized style to make this kind of style fingerprinting harder.

No sweat, I just learned that myself because of your question.

According to the cert grant it’s a pretty well established circuit split:

The Tenth Circuit’s decision is the latest addi- tion to a deep division in the circuit courts as to whether a denial of derivative sovereign immunity is an appealable collateral order. The Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits hold that it is; the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and now Tenth Cir- cuits hold that it is not.

It only takes 4 justices for the court to grant cert on a case, so it’s possible most of the court would prefer not to hear the case at all and leave the circuits split. I can’t find which justices voted to grant, I’m not even sure if it’s public information.

Writ of certiorari: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-758/337176/20250113154843375_No. 24-______ Petition.pdf

EDIT: as to it’s impact on ICE: It’s overturning precedent in a few Circuits regarding so-called “derivative soveriegn immunity” for contractors who work with government agencies, so it will probably have impacts for ICE in some parts of the country. I think it mostly means that more cases will have to churn through the lower courts before higher courts can review them, which may mean more splashy “ICE dunked on by liberal judge” headlines. I think it also means that higher courts will have to review the cases on the merits, rather than just dismissing them as unreviewable due to DSI. How many cases that applies to and what the actual implications are, IDK IANAL.

They wanted to clarify whether GEO can appeal directly to the Circuit before a judgement has been rendered by the lower courts. SCOTUS said no, lower courts have to issue a final judgement before higher courts have jurisdiction.

We granted certiorari, 605 U. S. 968 (2025), to resolve whether a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection to a government contractor is immediately appealable. Like the Tenth Circuit, we hold that it is not. But unlike the Tenth Circuit, we focus on the third Cohen condition, which re- quires an order to be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

Decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-758_2dp3.pdf

Not really. The blue states just get more press because they have more protesters clashing with ICE. They’re operating in red states too, just more quietly. It’s not safe anywhere in the US at the moment.

Kind of. My reading of the opinion is that it boils down to “the power to regulate doesn’t imply the power to tax and never has.”

The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilat-
erally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and
scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional
context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear
congressional authorization to exercise it.
IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . . importation”
falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties.
The Government points to no statute in which Congress
used the word “regulate” to authorize taxation. And until
now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.
We claim no special competence in matters of economics
or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited
role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Ful-
filling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the
President to impose tariffs.

Full opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

The people yearn for IoC

They aren’t a waste of money if investors can assume that there won’t be party changes in the future.

The Post Office is secretly being controlled by the US Government. If you look at the actual laws of the US it allows the President to appoint someone called the Postmaster General who’s in charge of the whole thing.

I think it would be a pretty good prank to bring this up in a “favorite crazy conspiracy theory” conversation where all but one participant agrees that it’s a baseless conspiracy theory and see if the one other person insists that the Postmaster General Theory is real, or goes along with the crowd. But I really don’t think my friends are coordinated enough to pull it off.