Instead of asking AI to write something substansive for you, ask it to critique your writing. Then use your own judgement as to which bits of advice to follow and which to ignore.
The LLM will always give you a full rewrite — don't use it. It always does too much, and persuading it to tone it down is a constant battle.
It's childish of me I know, but if this actually goes through I will feel a twinge of delight at the refutation of all the HN commenters who have argued that such enforcement is unrealistic.
The socialized losses vastly exceed 300% of earnings - they're analogous to a company mishandling toxic waste and ruining everyone around them. The way they are running their business is catastrophically irresponsible, and if they can't afford the consequences, they shouldn't have gone into this business.
Fines exceeding 100% of lifetime compensation might actually do something. As it stands, clawbacks are ineffective — for example, Carrie Tolstedt of the Wells Fargo scandal wound up money ahead to the tune of tens of millions of dollars:
> In response to the report, Wells Fargo retroactively fired Tolstedt for cause and revoked $47.3 million that they had previously paid her. This brought the total amount of money she had given up to $67 million, or about 54% of her $125 million pay package she initially received when she retired.
Ohhh, has anybody used AI to generate delicious statistics about how many ads served by various ad networks will get you hacked / violate the ad networks own policies?
Fully agree. Humans are social animals who behave differently in different contexts, and the corporate context statistically ensures that the humans inside of it behave in all sorts of lamentable ways.
reply