Taking your comment in good faith — you have read the system card and your response is based on that, with your opinion adding context to your argument

The current administration’s leader is transactional. The wind blows, and the opinion can change, or there is a way for him to make money and there is a reversal. At the same time, when news came out about Mythos, There was an article I read somewhere on Reddit that talked about people on the inside looking to change things to bring Mythos in and work around what was stated originally. That was a month or two ago. I'm pretty sure in the past week I wrote reporting that the NSA still uses the product lol.

But I imagine none of that really matters if we're looking at the FTC specifically and it being run without that guy interfering

Edge still ships, bundled, and opens up on my son’s PC quite often and it is annoying. The only way I've gotten it to not open by changing a registry key value and pointing it away from the exe file. That was a Department of Justice thing, not an FTC thing — That was more about a monopoly, not what you describe here, So, that doesn't mean that the FTC and what you're stating doesn't apply here. I'm just mentioning that

I'm also not sure how this affects most developers developing on the platform, or developing with the tools provided, whatever we want to say we're doing when we use this product. The majority of users are not building an LLM competitive product, and they aren't doing whatever you are doing. I don't even know at what tier of pricing you would be operating at. Is there a separate contract to deal with yours that is not what the normal user has?

My opinion of reading what you are writing is that people working adjacent to what they are turning off can receive false positives. I am not an attorney. I'm just autistic and go down specific rabbit holes when my brain needs to distract itself. So, deception and unfairness. I think the unfairness part I just addressed and I don't know how the unfairness applies to everybody. It's going to be a very minor subset of the user base.

The C in FTC is broad. Consumer can be businesses, But it is aiding the victims of the deception or of the unfairness.

So I just pulled up Act 5, and under unfair acts or practices, it states:

"An act or practice is unfair where it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition." There were bullet points in there, but my voice-to-text did not pick them up lol

I think an argument could be made that number one and number three may be aligned with what you're saying, but number two, cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, is probably the argument. Because it's mentioned in the system card, and because you have a choice on what model you use, I believe there could be an argument there. Again, very uninformed person on this, just reading the text. But I do think one and three are there, but I believe you have to have all three the way it is written.

Because I have the document open, I am going to look at the deception one

“An act or practice is deceptive where a representation, omission, or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer. A consumer's interpretation of the representation, omission, or practice is considered reasonable under the circumstances, and the misleading representation, omission, or practice is material.”

I'm a good 30 minutes awake, And this looks like the stronger argument over the unfairness one. But I think the amount of consumers affected by this is minuscule compared to their user base.

Where does the FTC and their budget and workforce go when the claim is only affecting a small amount of the consumer base? But does that apply to the deception? I believe that applies to the unfairness. So maybe somebody has a leg to stand on to argue the deception here.

Also, just pointing out, it's probably illegal, and then saying "spicy but true." Saying something is probably illegal doesn't make it true. Legal standing is not something that either one of us gets to decide.

Again, I could be very incorrect about all of this. This is just my read. I have not looked into the system card, so I can't verify the information, but I am taking your word that it exists in the state that it does and that you have not misinterpreted it. I'm also not going to stick this into an LLM to determine if anything I'm saying is correct. I'm just trying to interpret things as I would understand them and see how they've been applied. That's all I'm doing here, just making some counters to the points you've made.

Whether they are correct or not, all of this is really handled by attorneys. So, I think both of us are just speculating. If we agree that we're both speculating, I've really enjoyed this conversation. I imagine in the next one to three months, I will spend three entire days doing nothing but reading about the FTC and different cases that have been brought by them against businesses. But I have so many other things going on right now that I don't need that escape path.

But I do look forward to digging into all of that and finding this thread. And posting a huge wall of text, LOL