The tech firm was not named by the court.
Why the fuck not‽
The fact that this is even possible in China blows my mind. Court proceedings should always be a matter of public record unless there's some grand reason like national security concerns or victims that could face very real danger from their names becoming public.
Their... menace?
I love Canada Dry Zero. It tastes great if it's really cold.
Zero sugar (uses aspartame)
Don't they already have a king?
I have zero faith in faith-based anything. Because no one should. That counts 10x when it's run by or featured by the government.
Just another way the Trump administration wants to enable pedophiles and sexual predators.
One look at this picture and I was like, "oh dam!"
the doc has no clue what the third party does or doesn’t do with my data
The doc would have no clue what his local IT staff do with his data, either. Furthermore, for all you know, the doctor isn't deleting the things they record. In all of these scenarios, it's 100% out of your control. Even if it's local. Because it's not your hardware and it's not your business (as in, you don't own the doctor's office/hospital).
What you're complaining about is contract law. You obviously don't trust it. That has nothing to do with your voice being sent to servers in an Amazon data center. The 3rd party transcription service provider is under contract not to share your data and so is Amazon. Just like the doctor's office is required by law not to share your data without your consent (which I guarantee you gave them permission for when you did your paperwork at that office).
Now let me take a step back for a second and ask a more serious question: Why do you care? I mean, I can think of several reasons why someone could care about theirs and their doctor's voices being recorded but why do you, specifically care? What's the "this is a problem" scenario you're worried about?
Let me ask you a serious question: How would you limit the construction of AI data centers VS regular ones? Or even a data center inside of an existing office building? Or a data center that's just a backup location (where half of the equipment might not even be turned on all the time)?
How do you enforce such a thing? I could build a totally normal data center, then install a bunch of Nvidia HBMs and no one would know. You'd need a specific legal entity, the Data Center Police that dictate how, when, and why any given type of hardware gets used.
On the face of it, it's a huge violation of freedom of speech. Because you'd have to look into what specific software and data was being run/used on the hardware to see if it's related to AI and not, say, a CGI rendering farm. Or protein folding. Or physics/medical research. All of which use the same exact hardware.
I'm not saying you can't regulate data centers. You just can't regulate what people do with any given hardware.
My recommendation: Regulate data centers in these ways:
Implement those two requirements and no one would have any basis to be bitching about data centers, specifically. There's much, much worse business/industrial buildings than data centers.
Aside: Data centers are just climate-controlled office buildings (with extra cooling). They just sit there. From a noise perspective, they're on par with a warehouse. In fact, warehouses that stay open 24/7 are much, much worse because of the truck traffic and forklifts. While a data center is a 24/7, low-frequency hum (on the outside, nearby), a warehouse is going to be shaking things nearby.
...and nothing is worse than busy train tracks! I slept at a friend's place for a few days that lived next to an elevated train (across the street from his window). There's no way a data center is worse than that! No way.
Since mice are prey animals, their brain architecture and brain scaling would likely result in them seeing little visions of their predators (e.g. cats/birds) or they'd smell hundreds of miniature mice that they couldn't really see (like synesthesia).
Elfaloids and elfatryptamine.
Possibly also hydroxy-lilliputimol and/or lilliputinic acid.
"Are they breaking any laws?"
"They're using our AI to figure out how it works! To make their own AI models better!"
"Yes, but are they breaking any laws?"
"No."
I get that Big AI is bitching but this isn't something we (as a country) should be actively trying to stop. To do so would infringe on everyone's rights to do things like scrape the Internet, download your own posts/history, archive stuff, etc.
It's not even fraud! They're paying customers! Do they use 3rd parties to pay? Sure. It's that illegal? No.
There's no way to stop it anyway. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking. It's like believing that passing some law or series of laws will somehow stop piracy.
I swear, if there's an afterlife, you won't be judged based on how good or bad you were. It'll be based on your hypocrisy.
Example 1
Death: "You were a mob boss. You had many people injured, tortured, and murdered. Did you ever try to fool anyone into thinking you were not a mobster? That you were innocent?"
Mobster soul: "Only law enforcement! I mean, everyone knew I was the head of a criminal organization. I was a proud mob boss! I acted accordingly and never misrepresented myself!"
Death: "You will be reincarnated. We have many worlds in need of villains."
Example 2
Death: "You were a politician, fraudster, and serial philanderer. You took many lovers in secret. Made many promises you never kept. That you never intended to keep."
Politician soul: "Guilty as charged! But hey, I gave millions to charity! I was super polite and never personally physically harmed a single person. I mean, so many people thought I was great! Obviously, that means I was!"
Death: "You will serve in hell."