„in our opinion, insurance fraud is not more unethical than lying and price fixing“
The authors seem surprised that behavior that is very often done by humans (lying and price fixing) are more often done by fable compared to actual fraud.
I think the model never assigned any morality to these actions in the first place, it simply copied us humans.
Yes, but us universities aren’t financially accessible to most people and access depends more on connections and families than merit.
But your link also is only relevant to the university system.
It doesn’t change the fact that the non university part of education is severely financially crippled in major areas of the country in order to hinder black people from getting proper education.
Combined with a burnout introducing system of standardized tests the us educational system is truly world leading. At demonstrating how NOT to do education.
> us universities aren’t financially accessible to most people
On the contrary, they are too accessible due to enormous tuition bills and federally guaranteed student loans (which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy). This toxic combination saddles many graduates with debt they will struggle to pay off for decades. Almost as if it was intended to create a modern form of debt slave.
> access depends more on connections and families than merit.
Only true for small elite private colleges these days. Even most of the big top schools have tried to move away from legacy admissions.
State schools also have problems with excessive tuition expenses, but the value is still there for high-demand undergraduate degrees (mostly just for connections and job access afterwards) and definitely for a Master’s. They also accept almost anyone regardless of educational background.
US trade schools are a fantastic value, and more people should take advantage of them. They are a great option, but too many people don’t realize that for many careers a trade school or community college is perfectly adequate and won’t hold you back or saddle you with a mountain of debt.
> Combined with a burnout introducing system of standardized tests
Our standardized testing has problems, but it’s really not that stressful or difficult compared to, say, much of SE Asia.
"On the contrary, they are too accessible due to enormous tuition bills and federally guaranteed student loans (which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy). This toxic combination saddles many graduates with debt they will struggle to pay off for decades. Almost as if it was intended to create a modern form of debt slave."
How about making universities accessible without federally guaranteed studen loans? Debt slaving doesn't mean accessibility.
“Too accessible” was just a rhetorical flourish, obviously it would be great if everyone could get a good education. If “access” comes with crippling debt, better not to have that access. 4 year college isn’t the only way to get an education.
And yet my American ex-GF that went to one of these top universities with very good grades when she came to Barcelona to do a masters (in a lowly Spanish university) she was so far behind in knowledge compared to her peers she had to do a lot of work just to catch up.
I'm pretty sure most of these are just politics being played.
From last November to March, the court papers say, Mr. Rush asked for, and received, “a significant quantity of foreign currency and tens of millions of dollars in gold bars for work-related expenses.”
Obvious plant nobody would be that stupid to store the valuables at home within the first six months after the „acquisition“.
——
Also the CIA was unable to confirm his discharge with the navy earlier? As if people aren’t properly vetted every time they switch jobs within the agency. (Especially considering his CIA career was on an upward trajectory)
I have no clue what Mr. Rush actually did but it was neither of these two things which earned him ire.
Maybe he’s a traitor and the gold + foreign money are bribes. If the CIA doesn’t want to explain what he‘s been bribed for the charges make a more sense.
> Obvious plant nobody would be that stupid to store the valuables at home within the first six months after the „acquisition“.
Whenever you say "nobody would be that stupid" you have to pause and take a deep breath and realise that however dumb something is, there are for sure people who are stupid enough to do it.
Example 1 from personal experience: I was at my aunt's house and she had to rush a friend's husband to get medical help because he had drilled a hole in his own stomach with a hand drill while trying to put up a bookshelf.
The friend had been reading a book on medieval medicine so (rather than rushing her husband immediately to hospital) decided to try a medieval remedy on him so fed him some soup to see whether (in line with the medieval diagnostic routine) she could smell it after he had eaten it. She could indeed, because it dribbled out of the hole he had drilled in his stomach.
Now. You might reasonably say: "Noone would be so dumb as to drill a hole in their own stomach" or indeed "noone would be so dumb as to see a loved one who had drilled a hole in themselves and decide to feed them soup" but I can tell you from direct personal experience there are people dumb enough to do this.
Example 2 from personal experience[1]: A friend of my dad who was a highly capable chemical engineer and generally very practical guy (eg he made a motorcycle for his kids to play on using salvaged parts including a lawnmower engine and a frame he welded together himself) was a hobby parachutist. He broke his spine because he decided to modify his parachute himself on his wife's sewing machine in spite of having no previous sewing experience.
However dumb something is, there are people dumb enough to do it and even otherwise smart people have blind spots that make them incredibly dumb under the right circumstances.
[1] Just in case you think smart people can't do incredibly dumb things.
Reminds me of safety trainings where they show machine-shop accidents or people nailing themselves with an air-gun. It happens more than we think and is gruesome. Just a couple months ago saw a Dewalt framing nailer recall posted at home depot for accidental discharges without the trigger being held.
Not the same as drilling into your stomach - and I see a black comedy element - but can't help but wince and cringe at the thought of it all and it's not genuinely funny to me.
The drilling into oneself is not funny. The feeding an obviously seriously injured person soup to deduce the severity of their illness is funny as hell to me
> Whenever you say "nobody would be that stupid" you have to pause and take a deep breath and realise that however dumb something is, there are for sure people who are stupid enough to do it.
Long ago, I graduated from a police academy. One of the things taught was that crooks, while clever at finding ways to make money, are rather unclever ("stupid" if you will) at performing that task. Which is why so many are caught.
The smart engineer who over-estimated his ability with sewing is a tragic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I'm reminded of the Dunning Kruger paper [0]:
> In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night, less than an hour after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o'clock news. When police later showed him the surveillance tapes, Mr. Wheeler stared in incredulity. "But I wore the juice," he mumbled. Apparently, Mr. Wheeler was under the impression that rubbing one's face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to videotape cameras.
I think we often underestimate the intelligence of the criminal population for two main reasons.
1. The dumbest ones are most likely to be caught and have their stories told.
2. Law Enforcement often gets frustrated at chasing the smarter ones and use illegal methods catching them and the real story doesn’t come out in court.
I'm not saying this hasn't happened, but any competent criminal defense attorney (like a SMART criminal would have) would go to town on illegally obtained evidence. I'm not saying cops don't do warrantless searches/taps/etc., to gather unofficial clues, but if they can't get real evidence that stands up under scrutiny, the criminal walks.
I'm not sure if prosecution would move forward on such shaky ground in hard to prove cases.
I don't think 'going to town on illegally obtained evidence' works as often as you believe it does [0, 1].
And think back - how many people went to jail for national and/or international scale warrantless wiretapping? How did we, as a nation, respond to Snowden's revelations?
> I'm not sure if prosecution would move forward on such shaky ground in hard to prove cases.
There are people on death row in the US even after being proven innocent and ordered to go free. Dignity in Ink [2] present similar cases every day - they're never going to run out of material.
0 - A major DOJ/GAO-era federal study found that illegal search/seizure issues accounted for about 0.4% of declined federal prosecutions and roughly 0.7% of dismissed cases after prosecution began. - https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/84544NCJRS.pdf
1 - Another study across seven jurisdictions found motions to suppress succeeded in under 1% of warrant cases, and only 1.5% of defendants went free because of successful suppression motions. - https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/search-warrants-mot...
Parallel construction is when they use illegally obtained evidence to construct a separate set of ostensibly legitimate evidence. Like, an illegal wiretap might lead to someone being in the right place at the right time to witness a crime.
Near as I can tell Luigi nullified all his carefully planned evasion and escape routing by deciding at the last minute he really needed a coffee from the Starbucks across the street from where he was about to shoot his victim and didn't keep his hoody up. If he'd worn a long-billed baseball cap, dark glasses, kept his hoody up and skipped Starbucks he'd probably never have been caught.
His evasion and escape plan was actually pretty good and he put a lot of effort into being hard to trace by arriving and departing NYC via bus and staying in a hostel, which makes it surprising he screwed up the easiest and most obvious things.
On the other hand, smart people with criminal intent are more likely to find legal ways to profit. Why steal a hundred bucks from somebody when you can figure out how to steal a few bucks from millions and your only punishment is paying a fraction of your profit in fines.
> Law Enforcement often gets frustrated at chasing the smarter ones
and gives up, moving on to easier prey - and ideally getting them to plead to the other crimes I can't solve as part of a nice plea deal. Great for the stats.
The really smart ones leave people wondering if a crime really happened at all. It doesn't even need to be Oceans 11/12/n++, it can be simply "are you even sure the money is missing?"
I mean, you see smart people all over the world talking to imaginary, supernatural, all powerfull beings asking for favors via prayers, like that would have any effect on their lives.
Prayer is more than begging favors from imaginary friends, even if that is the stereotype and there is some truth in it. Like meditation, journaling, and other contemplative practices, it is a mechanism for putting the day-to-day in proper context of some larger narrative. In a theological framework, then, it's about a narrative in which you aren't alone in your joys and sorrows.
I don't think intelligence and spiritual practice are mutually exclusive. I think you can be repulsed by the dogma, indoctrination, and irrationality but also recognize that there might be something redeemable in such popular frameworks for finding meaning and purpose in existence.
It may be more than begging favors from imaginary friends, but it does include begging favors from imaginary friends.
How many people would agree with the statement "prayer works"? How many of them consider that to mean actual concrete effects taking place outside the person making the prayer? It's a lot.
Maybe prayer is, for some people, just a way to organize your thoughts or whatever. But for a huge number of people, it's a way to literally influence outside events.
Prayer does work, through the mechanism of putting your thoughts in perspective and context and sharing them outside yourself. Whether or not people understand the reason “why” it works doesn’t matter.
I think the difference is if its personal and spiritual. Compared to "thoughts and prayer" for the dead children in the latest school shooting, and continue to do nothing else.
I think most people would argue that's just being a moral person. Jesus was a humanist, after all. I find that these days, the folks looking for community won't really build for others, and the folks looking to build for others are extremely hesitant to join a community. You tell me why and which group are better Christians.
As outlined in John 1:1, Jesus is in fact God himself, and God is something far greater and more magnificent than a humanist. The message of the Bible is a total inversion of humanism, teaching us to believe in God alone rather than ourselves for deliverance from the necessary and ultimately temporary problems of evil and suffering. It's full of stories of human beings attempting to fix things on their own and failing spectacularly (which is ironic given the history of the church).
Forgot the holy spirit, doofus. The God in you and me. The reason Jesus told us to love one another. You will never be righteous with such a shallow and disconnected interpretation of God's will.
I have offered you a theological counterpoint to your claim, and you may take it or leave it, but you may not call me names and continue in any kind of meaningful dialogue here. It is beneath us both.
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:20
In medicine, placebo was proven to have a positive effect. Maybe we will learn about similar effects about other things.
Now, if only we would convince everybody that those supernatural beings don't work through representatives that everybody must listen, that would already be an improvement!
Why wouldn't supernatural beings work through representatives? For one thing, they are presumably only going to work through people that are committed to their (the beings') agenda. And why would supernatural beings necessarily be populist? Until the Christian revolution, the dominant thought was that the supernatural beings were elitist; all of the heroes in Greek mythology were nobility of some form.
He was also a heretic, but what he was most certainly not, was an atheist. All I'm saying is that if some very smart people strongly believe that we're not just star dust that should at least make you question your own belief that there is no higher power.
Maybe put it to the test, even though you feel dumb for doing it, pray for something small that you would not otherwise expect to happen in the immediate future. see what happens
People who are otherwise smart often believe dumb things. History is littered with them. Which is why appeal to authority should always be regarded with skepticism.
This prayer example illustrates a series of fallacies and human biases. Confirmation bias, survivorship bias, apophenia, post-hoc reasoning... many ways we know our brains trick us.
Try this pre-registered, with large numbers and control groups.
Or just read the literature from people who did. Prayer does nothing.
It also made sense to say you believed in God, because if you did anything else people would do things like burning you alive. Even now, although it’s not usually as violent religion is frequently very coercive.
Sure, but nonexistence is the default. Has to be the default; most possible things do not exist. In this case we have no evidence for, so we stay with the default.
Are they? And anyway, plenty of trees have been observed falling in the forest, and gravity in general. Not so many repeatable observations about divine beings, healing, etc.
Absence of evidence isn't proof of existence. Ultimately it's all about probabilities based what is known. Unlikely there is a blue teacup within Saturn's rings or a flying spaghetti monster.
> nobody would be that stupid to store the valuables at home within the first six months after the „acquisition“.
But where else would you keep it? A safe-deposit box at a bank?
I think, if I received illegitimate gold bars and figured the FBI might look into that, I would choose to keep them somewhere where a judge would think twice before issuing a search warrant for. Judges don't generally just issue search warrants for residences willy-nilly (because there can often be collateral damage); they're much more blasé about issuing search warrants for safe-deposit boxes.
Or are you imagining he'd go bury the gold in a hole in the woods somewhere?
Everyone is a criminal mastermind after reading about someone else getting caught: You only have to say you wouldn’t do the thing that they did and you can smugly imagine yourself getting away with it.
He didn’t acquire 300 gold bars and the other currency at once. He was getting these over a long period. He works for an intelligence agency, so he knew that his actions were going to be investigated. If he was doing any of these routines suggested in the comments like buying a rural plot of land to bury them or taking up camping (alone, by himself) these are all going to raise suspicions and become another thing that could give me away.
> he knew that his actions were going to be investigated
I disagree - my take when I first read this was that this was likely a pervasive thing that senior people all did, and they all knew about it. This guy pissed off the wrong person and so they took him down. Same for the lying about credentials - I am sure everyone is like "hey Jim, did you want to apply for that promotion?" with the response of "I can't because I didn't serve long enough", and the final reply of "oh just make up the numbers, everyone does and they don't check".
Why not carry 600 lbs of gold bars out into the forest and bury them, then hope nobody thought it was suspicious to see someone carrying a shovel into the forest on any one of the trips necessary to do it?
A small plot of forested rural land without utility service doesn't cost much at all. Go car camping at your new private getaway for a few days. This isn't rocket science.
Also if you drive out to a remote part of the US who is going to see you? There are some very empty places in this country. Not quite on the level of Canada or Russia but still.
> A small plot of forested rural land without utility service doesn't cost much at all. Go car camping at your new private getaway for a few days. This isn't rocket science.
Once someone is under investigation for something like this, they will look at everything.
If the person suddenly bought a small plot of rural land with no utility service that’s going to raise red flags.
As a secondary problem, once the investigators start asking you about it you have to lie to them, which opens you to more charges.
> once the investigators start asking you about it you have to lie to them
You literally don't, that's what the fifth amendment is for
there's a large lack of creativity in these comments. pay for a deer lease, go hunting, don't bring phone, bury gold somewhere random in thousands of acres of land deep enough metal detectors won't find it, kill deer, go home. repeat 3x a year and it's both not suspicious at all but also basically impossible for others to find the gold at that point even if they suspect.
> A small plot of forested rural land without utility service...
True. OTOH, (1) it's both unusual and public record that you own it, (2) it's seriously unsecured, and (3) the locals both know the turf far better than you and may feel little respect for the undeveloped land of an "outsider".
Bigger picture - Mr. Rush's obsession with collecting very tangible wealth seems to have completely overridden his abilities for rational thought and long-term planning.
EDIT:
> Also if you drive out to a remote part of the US who is going to see you?
The post-Snowden Surveillance State. Between license plate readers, the cell modem in your car, your cell phone, and the difficulty of faking your usual activity patterns "back home" while driving to/from some remote location radio silent (which itself is probably a red flag)...yeah, NO.
They would see you driving out into the sticks to go camping for a few days. That's entirely normal isn't it? We haven't (yet) made it to the level of flock cameras on gravel logging roads.
If there are deer or elk in the region, it is reasonable to believe that there will be "trail cameras" in the region. Many of them are camouflaged to look exactly like tree bark. In the event that you are considering burying treasure in that plot of land, it would behoove you to carefully inspect:
1. the fences to see where people have been cutting them or splicing them to allow for easier access.
2. All the trees within eyesight of your proposed Pirate Loot site for camo'd trail cameras. Install some of your own to ensure no one is a frequent flier in your turf. Ginseng poachers are a problem in wooded lands in the Eastern part of the US. With legal weed (in many states), growing pot on someone else's land has died down a lot (the owner of the land ends up in legal trouble).
In the end, it might be easier to dig up part of your basement to bury it there. And to obtain a large gun safe to appear to be where valuables are stored. If someone wonders why the cement floor has cut/repair marks, just shudder and mumble plumbing work on the main drain line due to tree roots.
> They would see you driving out into the sticks to go camping for a few days. That's entirely normal isn't it?
If someone has a history of taking a lot of solo camping trips it might not raise suspicions.
A common way criminals get caught is by suddenly doing something out of the ordinary. If the 50 year old guy who sits behind a desk and spends weekends at home with his family suddenly takes up a hobby of camping alone in one specific remote location and his trips coincide with each a acquisition of gold bars, the investigators monitoring him are going to be all over that.
I think everyone in this sub thread is imagining that he got all of the gold bars at once and could have made a single move to hide them all. He gathered these over many requests. Taking a solo camping trip every time you acquire something new is red flags all over the place.
All of the comments in this thread assume he was being investigated for his acquisition of comically large amounts of cash and commodities that he presumably left the building with in big bags with a dollar sign on them. They ignore the open secret that the CIA is cartoonishly out of control has been little more than a massive organised crime syndicate that happens to be on the government payroll for 20 years.
In all likelihood, his taking more than forty million dollars wasn't the suspicious behaviour that set him to being investigated. It's right there in the charge sheet. He was being investigated because payroll noticed he was fraudulently claiming leave that he wasn't entitled to. There's no routine oversight on who they're bribing with actual gold. There's still routine oversight on their payroll and HR practices. That led to them actually checking his resume properly, and when that was shown to be bullshit, only then did they actually look at what this guy was doing.
As horrifying as that image first appears, it turns out that's actually located adjacent to a road between two subdivisions in Mission Viejo CA. The picture conveniently had all of that cropped out though. It would appear that someone rotated the camera so it no longer faces the road.
There are endless miles of places in the US where you could not be seen. That said as evidence by your perspective, there are plenty of people who have never really been to places where you can not see another human for days or weeks or longer if you don't count seeing simple movement or campfire smoke a mile off.
Because, for someone with any kind of security clearance, suddenly going out to the woods, if you don't normally go out to the woods, would be a major outlier from your highly-scrutinized and documented regular life; and so could easily lead the FBI to finding your buried gold, without having to get any kind of warrant.
I think you're overselling the security clearance system.
In reality, it'd flag something like "taking out a massive loan for no discernible reason", or "filed for bankruptcy".
I believe a huge part of the big AI push is that the government dragnets have collected so much data, it's nearly impossible to sift through and they're hoping LLMs can finally make sense of it, along the lines of what you're suggesting.
Isn't the FBI investigating deaths and disappearances of people with critical access to sensitive material and only found out about it from a newspaper? How much resources do you think are put into monitoring every aspect of the lives of people with access to sensitive info?
Those deaths and disappearances is a big non-story if you actually look in to the details of the cases. The media is making a big deal out of it because the headline grabs eyeballs. So since the media is making a big deal about it the FBI now has to say and do something.
The government is already tracking every possible detail they can get their hands about every single citizen. Why wouldn't they expend at least that much effort on the people with sensitive information? The records are collected, the only question left is when/how often they get used.
It's easy to collect and collate logs from electronic systems (banking, purchases, internet browsing habits, ALPR data) and monitor for things that stand out. To track that someone hid something the size of a suitcase "somewhere" you need to turn that event into electronic data. That's constant individual video monitoring. Or else you just have one electronic data point "car parked here, phone in car".
For such wealth, basic opsec would be worth it 10000x over, cia folks should know it well. No phone, use old car, pack it with camping gear placed above the gold. Initially go prepare the place, heck even setup a movement-triggered camera there for few weeks. Go where there is lush greenery so you can actually dig 1-2m deep hole in the dirt without dynamite. Learn how to cover place so it looks natural. And learn how to come back to it and find it reliably, day, night, rain, snow doesnt matter. My son could come up with this.
One thing that the Bosnian/Serbian conflict/genocide [0] taught authorities is how to find hidden grave sites. Ground penetrating radar comes in a convenient device that is sized & shaped like a typical American lawnmower.
Soil comes in layers and it would be best to spread ground cloths to capture different soils from different layers and to replace them at the appropriate levels in the ground. While this won't defeat ground penetrating radar, it will make the burial site more closely resemble surrounding soil to make the "signal" harder for the less skilled operators to detect.
Leave it at home obviously, or carry a burner, or just turn it off and put it in a metal lunch box etc. Solutions galore. This would only be a problem if every CIA employee is under surveillance.
Why not make multiple trips to carry extremely heavy metal, as a frail office worker, into the woods, which are full of hikers and hunters, on country roads in a suspicious-looking sedan, with a shovel in hand? And then do it all over again whenever you intend to retrieve these gold bars to do whatever it is you want to do with them? Why indeed.
But how did the CIA not check on whether or not he had graduated from one of the three different colleges he listed as graduating from the three different times he applied for a job at the CIA?!?!?
Planting drugs would be wildly easier, both logistically and conveniently. Gold bars have got to be among the least easy ways to manufacture evidence to throw someone behind bars. Hell it could even easily explain the gold bars…
There’s zero reason to assume this is anything but exceptional incompetence, and looking at the current administration that’s wildly easy to believe.
Honestly I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that you can just ask for $40M in gold bars as a CIA agent and they don't have a better way of figuring out if you pocketed it than looking for it later (and apparently taking a while to think of checking his home?)
Probably a mini Iran-Contra. Get approval for paying $40m to [SECRET] to carry out acts of pro-US terrorism. Steal the gold. Tip off the enemies of the group so they fail/are killed/arrested. Then report to your superior that the mission was a failure due to enemy action.
Or get approval for $5m, run operation for $2m and pocket the rest. Operation has provable, demonstratable effects, and the falsified payoffs are mixed in with the real ones. If people check up on you, you can point them to assets still on the books to confirm a payoff or funding for equipment. Rinse and repeat. Its just embezzlement, but in an environment where the assets are supposed to not be traceable. Rinse and repeat.
I would hope so. It would be very odd if they shared every detail of the suspect’s life, the investigation, the evidence, and all tangential but interesting facts as part of the arrest.
CIA recruitment is actually highly competitive. The best avenue to get to the top of the list when applying is if you have an “in”. CIA managers still do college campus visits, and for new college graduates who have done an interview with that individual and decide to apply that can use that person to get to the top of the list.
Vetting has been put on hold in cases where there are labor shortages. Don’t remember where, but I read an account of a military guy applying to ICE and they did no vetting at all, and had he accepted the jobs with a sizablebonus (he did it to see what their process was) he would have been deployed without training. At the time the source and person seemed credible.
This is what happens when a new administration fires the incumbent experts and hires by loyalty tests.
DHS is not the same as the CIA. The former is heavily politicized and the latter kinda just does its own thing and I'm pretty sure they haven't paused vetting (ICE agents don't require TS/SCI clearance like CIA officers)
One thing I was reminded by a friend is that exposing his fabrication would make that information useless. As long as the person who knows it wasn’t involved in the vetting process, they now have leverage over at least two people.
> Obvious plant nobody would be that stupid to store the valuables at home within the first six months after the „acquisition“.
This is an entertaining conspiracy theory because you'd have to believe that the CIA was so smart that they would completely manufacture a story to get someone arrested, yet so dumb that they'd make up a story that raises questions and makes them look like they did some stupid things.
If a powerful organization hypothetically wanted to get someone arrested by planting evidence, do you really believe this is the best idea they could come up with?
The idea isn't that they manufacture it from scratch but rather that they contrive a convenient explanation for the physical reality that already exists. In that scenario the evidence isn't planted but rather misattributed.
"If I were to do this again, I wouldn’t do a custom build like this. I would buy a standard datacenter server and rent space in a colocation center. But then I would miss saying Hi to grumbl once in a while."
My repos for personal projects are split in two.
One side contains code of better quality than I could write myself.
The other side is throwaway vibe-coded shit that works somehow.
“You’re somebody who is a bad mother, right?” Mutcherson said. “Which is a huge part of what the thought process is here. This is not what mothers do. Mothers sacrifice, including allowing somebody to cut you open.”
Quoting this without context, people might think someone from the case said this about the expecting mother. Instead, this quote comes from a law professor (that the author interviewed maybe?), who was, I guess, projecting the thought on to those of the legal system. The author kind of stuck this right in the middle of the story, so I don't blame readers if they confused the quote with someone from the trial saying it.
Or these are oranges and apples, and your perspective is simply blurred because you are starting a fight whenever someone wants you to put up your glasses.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the ai copy pasted the existing project. How can such a procedure not fall under copyright?
Especially now that ai can do this for any kind of intellectual property, like images, books or sourcecode. If judges would allow an ai rewrite to count as an original creation, copyright as we know it completely ends world wide.
Instead whats more likely is that no one is gonna buy that shit
It's up to them to prove that a) the original implementation was not part of whatever data set said AI used and b) that the engineers in question did not use the original as a basis.
No, that's not how copyright laws work. Especially in a world where the starting point is the accused making something and marketing it as someone else's IP with a license change.
It's still on the claimant to establish copying, which usually involves showing that the two works are substantially similar in protected elements. That the defendants had access to the original helps establish copying, but isn't on its own sufficient.
Only after that would the burden be on the defendants, such as to give a defense that their usage is sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use.
Yeah, I'm just doubtful Gemini could ever be considered a "better model" if it needs to put "chain of thought" artifacts into my source code, considering that none of the other models seems to need that to write better code than Gemini.
The authors seem surprised that behavior that is very often done by humans (lying and price fixing) are more often done by fable compared to actual fraud.
I think the model never assigned any morality to these actions in the first place, it simply copied us humans.