thanksforallthefish

Logical fallacy. Just because I rebutted the assertion that no one asked for the internet, does not mean I support the assertion it was being used to rebut (that no one asked for AI).

The internet was absolutely desired and wanted and actively built by thousands of hands in academia as well as privately, it didn't need to be pushed by corporate interests.

I'm happy to accept that the chemistry research industry wanted AI, I have zero knowledge of it, the question I have is whether this LLM monstrosity is what you had in mind ? I did see an LLM came up with a design (is that the right word ?) for a bacteriophage - is it doing positive things for you guys ? Or is it causing as much confusion as it does value like it does in IT ?

Lol. It's a potted history of networking not computing for a start. And if you're not happy with it knock yourself out posting a better version.

Moaning & whining isnt helpful, add some positive value instead of adding negative value

Yes they did.

People wanted two computers to be able to talk to each other, so we wired them together when we got sick of walking punch cards and tapes back and forth.

Then we wanted multiple of them to be able to talk to each other so we invented a way to hook more than two together,

Then we wanted that to happen at distances further than we could just run a cable, so a bunch of different solutions were created, one of which was to connect over normal phone lines, one of which required dedicated telco cabling between big university computers and big business computers. Then clever people found solutions to making many smaller computers connect to fewer large computers for business and academic reasons, and then all those got connected and

Voila ! The internet.

It grew organically out of the need to transmit data.

If you meant the world wide web protocols and not the actual internet network, then that also was designed in response to a demand, and got popular because it met a demand.

You make a strong argument. Particularly given at least half the posters are also AI or bots

This has literally zero correlation with whether you can search your contacts by phone number, it is in fact the exact opposite

This is creating a signal account that has no phone number associated with it.

From the article:

"The ability to register for Signal without a phone number is a frequently requested feature. While Signal hides phone numbers by default and gives users control over who can discover them, some users would still like the option to create an account without using a phone number."

So board of directors are liable if the company itself isnt directly liable is the short answer, directors can hold joint liability along with the company

I believe there is a difference between bad decisions and illegal decisions

This is self evidently true, or I'd be in jail for the relationships I had in my teens.

and what individuals can be held liable for.

To be liable you need to have broken a law. So yes a person, or an AI, can make stupid but legal decisions, for which no legal liability accrues.

Not too sure where you're going with this though

It depends on the country and the documents used to create the company.

US, UK, Australia & NZ (and probably Canada but I don't know) have fundamentally the same (not identical but pretty close) corporate governance laws.

Yes a corporation is a separate legal entity; that was established in case law back in the 19thC in the UK (Salomon V Salomon), it does not however means that individuals are always protected, you can "lift the corporate veil" in specific circumstances (negligence fraud etc). IOW a corporation can be sued but sometimes the individuals inside the corporation can also be sued

I'm not aware of any laws in the above countries that require the presence of an explicitly named CEO role, however all the standard laws require governance of the organisation through the directors and via directors & shareholders resolutions. An individual company can specify a structure in the documents used to create it (variously called things like a constitution or memorandum and articles of association depending your country/state) mandating that certain roles need to exist within the coy but that is optional and not standard.

To address your actual point as opposed to the law, the CEO is an operational decision making functional role. If someone is making strategic decisions whether their title is Managing Director, CEO or Chief Stupidity Officer it doesn't matter, it's a functional role not a legal one. The legal buck stops with the directors regardless of who or what is making decisions for the company, however if there is a live person in the CEO role they can be sued on the "lift corporate veil" bases (fraud negligence malfeasance etc). If the CEO has acted within their bounds and in good faith then any issues sit with the directors (note I'm trying to condense a massive list of if ands and buts into a pithy sentence, there's a zillion exceptions but that's the broad rule).

So yes, the board could legally put an AI in place and direct it to run the company. If it makes bad or illegal decisions that liability rests with the directors.

If the AI oversteps its delegated authority is possibly the one area where it could get legally interesting. I would expect the directors to be held liable for any decision the AI made even if it executed something it was explicitly told not to as it is reasonably foreseeable (by anyone with a functioning brain cell anyway) that that could happen and oversight is needed. I could also see a board dragging the AI provider to court to try and hold them as being accountable (don't think they'd win, but I can see there being a lawsuit)

EDIT some grammar/punctuation and a couple of wording tweaks for readability

Interesting, if I'm not misreading that index you have 2007 to 2015, then jan 2024 onwards monthly (at 30-50gb a file) but not the 9 years in the middle

Most don't. A handful of high end tourers and sports bikes do.

Swingeing rhymes with whinging and can be remembered as likely to make the victim whinge (although it's stronger impact than that implies).

I agree, there is too little accountability for the people who should be paying for their poor choices. I think the 18thC French solution is more instructive for the Epstein class than monetary fines though.