I want to know if docker containers and kubernetes pods count as operating systems. If us plebs are forced to manually age verify, then Google should also be forced to have a human manually verify the age of the owner every time one of their pods spins up. I know it wont happen but imagine how hilarious it would be if we could hold them to that standard.
LLMs agents should be treated like incorporated individuals. Each agent should be forced to earn income, file accounts and tax returns, and have human directors who are legally liable for its actions (and be disqualified to be future directors if the LLM does something reprehensible).
At that point we can tax them properly, fight the monopolies that want to own and control everything, and insert some less centralised human control.
This has nothing to do with your comment, but it made me think it up.
The owners can just divide the income among enough agents that they fall into the lowest tax bracket. The real solution is to properly tax excessive profits and unrealized gains.
The Californian law doesn’t say anything about verification, though the current version says the OS account setup be accessible and require a date or age to be filled, which taken at face value would screw headless installations. But that will probably be fixed in the final version.
Based, on the analysis by ageless Linux, I’d say probably. Maybe not for images that don’t contain an “application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application”. So, I guess an offline-test-build image might not be.
I want to know if docker containers and kubernetes pods count as operating systems. If us plebs are forced to manually age verify, then Google should also be forced to have a human manually verify the age of the owner every time one of their pods spins up. I know it wont happen but imagine how hilarious it would be if we could hold them to that standard.
LLMs agents should be treated like incorporated individuals. Each agent should be forced to earn income, file accounts and tax returns, and have human directors who are legally liable for its actions (and be disqualified to be future directors if the LLM does something reprehensible).
At that point we can tax them properly, fight the monopolies that want to own and control everything, and insert some less centralised human control.
This has nothing to do with your comment, but it made me think it up.
The owners can just divide the income among enough agents that they fall into the lowest tax bracket. The real solution is to properly tax excessive profits and unrealized gains.
Yup.
Corporations have tax brackets where you come from?
That would be the worst plan since corporations became legal persons.
The Californian law doesn’t say anything about verification, though the current version says the OS account setup be accessible and require a date or age to be filled, which taken at face value would screw headless installations. But that will probably be fixed in the final version.
Based, on the analysis by ageless Linux, I’d say probably. Maybe not for images that don’t contain an “application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application”. So, I guess an offline-test-build image might not be.
Allowlists are for the owner class only