That doesn't really matter though, and it just makes the argument stronger.

This is a technology with an inherent tendency of making up false information AND we don't even understand how or why.

That's enough not to entrust these sytems with critical decisions that could start a war.

Isn't "deal with the difference" just renaming the file?

Yes, but you see this is all part of Anthropic's master plan. They know developers are incapable of renaming files so the fact that Anthropic resisted Agents.md is proof that they were trying to lock you into them as a vendor.

> LAW: "the sum of all balances in this contract must be zero"

What prevents AI from writing an arbitrary calculation that makes sure that sum is always zero while breaking a whole other bunch of assumptions?

If the answer is more laws, then this does not address the parent comment.

Gross, obvious exploits can be easily picked up by AI reviews.

What AI reviews? I thought AI needed to be bound by Bend laws.

The AI either knows what the user wants perfectly and is able to prevent problems, or is a rougue agent that needs to be bound by laws to not misbehave. You can't have both.

And then the agentic loop over the reviews will rewrite them into less obvious exploits.

Relatedly, a friend told me that graphical design gigs dried up because everyone can make event fliers and posters with AI with results that are often better than those of designers.

Except that the UDHR is not the rule of law.

It is a mere declaration, as specified at the top of the page, that "is widely recognized as having inspired [...] the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties"

That does not make it an enforceable law. Moreover, treaties are agreements between countries, not laws, which a country can violate at will.

People might create supranational organizations like the UN or the ECHR, but that has, untimately, no enforcement power because that always belongs to sovereign countries. Violating a treaty can also lead to retaliation by other signatories or even war, but it still does not make a treaty law.

It might well be that the US has specific laws that prevent charging a citizen when they wipe their phone. But that must be a law passed by the US legislature, not a "universal declaration".

Not necessarily the same in every nation, but any treaty ratified by Congress in the United States has the same status as any law passed by Congress.

It is subject to judicial review, but has equal standing.

So the US cannot "violate [it] at will".

Sure it can, just like it can violate laws passed by Congress.

I agree with the conclusions of the article, and I am no fan of Amazon or search ads on any product.

However, I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment to brainstorm another issue.

Let's say I build a product that is better than others in the market. We all agree that competition is good becuase it leads to better products and lower prices.

However, the algorithm favors entrenched players. A product that has been bought many times and has positive reviews will be the first in the search results and people usually buy that. Which means I have no way to compete other than paying my way at the top of the list.

I'm not stating this as the ultimate solution or even a good one. But I think it's worth to ask the question.

> Let's say I build a product that is better than others in the market.

This sounds like the same song as Evolution: the winner is not "the best", the winner is "good enough" and dethroning "good enough" with "better" absolutely requires a sufficiently strong advantage, not just any incremental advantage.

If the incumbent is not "good enough", then they won't get great reviews and whoever does try them will be looking for an alternative right away, so you have your foot in the door on either front.

If the incumbent is good enough, then you just cannot market "being very slightly better": you target a demand that is not already sated. You could be cheaper.. by a large enough delta and without sufficient loss in quality to drive away demand, or you could begin by targeting whatever portion of the market is not satisfied by the incumbent for whatever reason.

Marketing is hard (and harder still when one is aiming to be ethical and a good steward of the market instead of constantly scamming and cheating and ruining everyone's trust), and "paying to force your message in front of unsolicited eyeballs" is not the only game in town.

What is the definition of major?

Globally, Firefox has ~2.2%.

On desktop alone that's still only 6.4%.

Where is the threshold?

While the calculation is not wrong, there are other factors at play in Meta's decisions.

First, how likely is it that similar rulings happen in other states or countries? While proportionally to the population the fine is significant, it isn't over Meta's global market. It can be only if similar fines will happen at a high enough rate.

Second, what is the global cost of adapting the whole platform to the ruling? (Assuming they don't build exceptions for users in New Mexico like Apple does)

Both factors have an influence, so if the fine is unlikely to be replicated, which it probably is, and the cost of adapting is exceedingly high, which certainly is, then Meta will continue their practices.

Wait, aren't they just licence plate readers? How do they help with all these other crimes?

Still, that defeats the purpose.