Latest news with #NicholasCreel
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Are We Likely To Get Stimulus Checks Under Trump? What Experts Say
If you've been on social media this year, you've probably seen posts about a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check — called the DOGE Dividend — possibly coming your way. But where would the money come from, and how likely are the American people to get these checks? Read Next: Find Out: The answer to the first question is simple. The $5,000 would theoretically come from the federal savings — which, at the time the DOGE checks were first mentioned, were anticipated to be about $2 trillion — gained from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Approximately a fifth of that would go toward the 79 million Americans who pay federal income tax. As for whether stimulus checks are likely to be sent out during Trump's second term, here's what the experts say. Between 2020 and 2021, the IRS sent out a total of three stimulus checks, or Economic Impact Payments. The deadline for most taxpayers claiming the third and final payment was April 15, 2025. So, what are the chances of receiving a fourth stimulus check — or the DOGE Dividend? According to experts, it's pretty unlikely. 'There is almost no realistic scenario where Americans will get a stimulus check under Trump's current term,' said Nicholas Creel, an associate professor of business law at Georgia College and State University. 'The majorities the GOP has in the legislature are paper thin, and a significant contingent of the party is far too concerned with the deficit to allow for that sort of massive spending program any time soon.' Other experts are inclined to agree. George Carrillo, co-founder and chief executive officer at the Hispanic Construction Council and former director of social determinants of health for the state of Oregon, noted that federal stimulus checks are unlikely in the near future due to a number of factors, including inflation, budget constraints, no legislative support, no concrete action and a current lack of bipartisan support. Be Aware: Stimulus checks are used as a way to jumpstart the economy — more money in taxpayers' hands potentially means more spending. But generally speaking, these checks are a short-term solution rather than a long-term one. 'I'd equate stimulus checks to the sugar rush you get when eating a lot of candy. Yes, eating candy boosts your energy, but it is short lived and leaves you worse off in the long term,' said Creel. 'You'd be far better off in the long term eating a proper diet and exercising, but of course that's never as fun!' Carrillo added that floating around the idea of a fourth stimulus check could also be a political move on the part of President Donald Trump. 'It could be a strategic move to win favorability and maintain control of the House and Senate, as financial relief tends to resonate with voters,' he said. Just because there might not be another round of stimulus checks — at least not in the foreseeable future — doesn't mean there won't be other financial relief for those who need it. According to Carrillo, 'Some states are stepping up with their own relief programs, so there may be local options to explore.' For example, New York intends to issue a one-time 'inflation refund' check this October. Eligible taxpayers could receive between $150 and $400. New Mexico is also rolling out its own relief program. State residents who qualify could receive $500 to $1,000. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses The 10 Most Reliable SUVs of 2025 This article originally appeared on Are We Likely To Get Stimulus Checks Under Trump? What Experts Say Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
05-04-2025
- The Hill
AI companies are commiting mass theft and hiding behind the language of ‘training'
once wrote, 'There is no right answer to the wrong question.' And while AI might struggle to understand the quip, we human readers get the point immediately. To solve a problem, you have to focus on what really matters about it. That's a big problem with the ongoing debate, most recently joined by Professor Nicholas Creel, over whether artificial intelligence models 'learn' the same way as humans. The simple answer, spelled out well in Erik J. Larson's book 'The Myth of Artificial Intelligence,' is that they don't. They can't handle or generate novelty, they become stymied when forced to operate with uncertainty or incomplete information, and they lack empathy and any real conception of understanding. They can copy and exploit almost infinite volumes of data, but they cannot extrapolate or intuit new truths from mere scraps of information as humans can. I asked Microsoft's AI, Copilot, the question, 'Does AI reason in the same way humans reason?' This is the answer I received: 'AI relies on large datasets and algorithms to make decisions and predictions. It processes information based on patterns and statistical analysis. AI follows predefined rules and models to arrive at conclusions. It doesn't have intuition or emotions influencing its decisions. AI can learn from data through techniques like machine learning, but this learning is based on mathematical models and not personal experiences.' As the Human Artistry Campaign's Moiya McTier has explained, real creativity flows from far more than crunching big data sets to pull out patterns and connections. It 'is the product of lived experience and grows organically from the culture, geography, family, and moments that shape us as individuals.' Thus, it's clear that AI learns and produces outputs in fundamentally different ways than humans do. But for those of us living and dealing with AI in the real world, including musicians like me whose work has been scraped off the internet and fed into AI models without any kind of consent, it's also clear this sterile philosopher's dispute isn't that important. Per LeGuin, the real question we should be asking is what AI does — and whether that is worth the cost. In order to develop their models and launch their pattern-detecting algorithms, it is indisputable that AI companies must cause a machine to reproduce copyrighted works or produce a new work derived from copyrighted works. They also distribute the work across a large network. These are three exclusive rights reserved to authors under federal law. Normally, a company that wishes to engage in this kind of activity would simply license the works from authors. But AI companies, ostensibly competitors, have all pretty much decided not to license the works but use them anyway, effectively setting the price for these copyrights at zero. That's a mass devaluing of the world's creative legacy — a huge cost in lost opportunities and jobs for real people. What's more, it will create a dumbed down and derivative culture and, if left unchecked too long, a gaping empty hole where the next generation of truly fresh or novel creations should be. AI models may excel at producing different versions of works they have copied and analyzed (reassembled from enough different sources to avoid immediate liability for plagiarism) but they cannot break the mold and give us something truly new. Sadly, AI evangelists seem determined to anthropomorphize commercial AI as cute little robots that learn the same way humans learn. They have coopted the language, reframing art as 'data' and mass copying as 'training,' as if AIs were pets. This is a fairytale designed to conceal the fact there is a cartel of trillion-dollar companies and deep-pocketed technology investors committing or excusing mass copyright infringement. Maybe that game would fool an AI, but we humans see right through it.
