Even more worth reading are the Federalist Papers, cover-to-cover, as he suggested. The depth to which the Framers considered the kind of situations we are in today is amazing.
Also read the anti-federalist papers. Their criticisms of weaknesses in the Constitution predict exactly how those weaknesses have been abused. Both sides of the argument understood the nature of power and humans.
I'm not convinced it was an oops. Hamilton was a power hungry twat that tried to expand federal power almost immediately after ratification.
But, the anti-federalists lost the argument at the time. That doesn't mean the argument was resolved completely. It just means the federalists convinced enough people the Constitution was "good enough" for ratification. We are meant to continue improving it.
Now that we know for sure that the anti federalists were right about the necessary and proper clause and the interstate commerce clause we should be arguing for amendments. Convince enough people and it happens.
- Whoever is paying you is your customer, no matter what alternative word we use for it. If you're an employee, your customer is your "employer." If you're being acquired, your customer is your "acquirer."
That is none-sens.
If that were true, all profits would go to the customers. No, you are hired because the company and its owners can extract the profits from your work. Laying you off could mean nothing to customers, but even more profits to them.
> "If that were true, all profits would go to the customers."
Why? What does that mean?
> No, you are hired because the company and its owners can extract the profits from your work. Laying you off could mean nothing to customers, but even more profits to them
Nothing you said here changes the fact that your employer is your customer, paying for your services. If you don't see it that way, it's to your own detriment.
> 1,000 billion euros allocated for social welfare
No, the money is definitely not meant for social programs, neither for affordable housing.
On the contrary, the debt brake was introduced to justify cutting social spending after the 2008 banking crash.
Social spending is still limited, debt financed military spending however is unlimited.
The money will go into fortifying bridges, roads for Truppentransporte, programs to protect civilians from disasters, emergencies, and armed conflicts. Military Keynesianism.
The political class is now debating ways to increase pressure on the population.. higher VAT, deregulate working hours, dropping public holidays, re-activate mandatory military service etc.
It depends on how SPD vs. CDU. For now they say its infrastructure and social.
Never the less, we should tax the rich and not talk about having a public holiday less.
Now that is a real feature for now. A lot of hesitation in embracing generative AI in large enterprises stems from uncertainty about copyright issue. Anyone who trained an o1-level model from scratch on public/properly licensed data only would be able to provide a very valuable service to those enterprise customers.
However, if both training and operating costs of a DeepSeek-like model are as small as they are, the companies best able to offer this service are... Microsoft, Amazon and Google. And second best are... teams inside the would-be customer enterprises themselves. $6M to train and $6K to run is effectively free for such companies; there is no moat here. The services that enterprise customers would happily buy instead of building are... operations, and assuming legal liability if the model turns out not to be safe from copyright infringement lawsuits. But those are exactly the services those companies are already buying from Microsoft, Amazon and Google.
This would result in some refreshing models, I guess they would be trained mostly on out-of-copyright stuff from 75+ years ago and wouldn't have knowledge of the modern world.
Maybe they could skin the robotic bureucrats in vintage scifi appearance as well to have the whole consistent experience when you go to the building permits bot, there could be small talk about the latest Beatles record etc.
Enforcing copyright on training data to this extent would actually create a temporary moat for the biggest players - they can afford to hire a lot of cheap labor to supplement the training dataset with human-authored original works that skirt IP protections by interpreting, parodying, commenting on or otherwise describing the protected works without actually infringing on them. As long as they keep those datasets private, everyone else is shit out of luck.
(I'm reiterating my prediction wrt. AI and moats - the only mid-term moat there can be is in human labor. Hardware vendors benefit from selling better hardware to more people for less; software and research are cheap to scale, datasets eventually leak or get reproduced. Human labor is the one thing that doesn't scale, and except for an economic crisis, only ever gets more expensive with time. Whatever edge one can get by applying human labor that cannot be substituted by AI - like RLHF and its evolutions - is the one that will last all the way to AGI; past that, moats won't matter anymore.)
One of the many reasons I'm firmly on the side of making the training of large neural models exempt of copyright considerations for everyone.
Isn't the training already exempt from copyright? Copyright is in the core about enabling licenses related to who's allowed to distribute copies of content (not ideas, but the exact same text, etc).
