Depending on how much independence the inspectors have they could probably turn a heck of a profit per inspector (thus being able to argue their continued existence to the legislature).
Could an inspector manage two per day? If you figure the full cost of each inspector is $150,000/year but dedicated ones could do 8 inspections at $5k each per week, there's well over $1 million/year per inspector (assuming not all inspections would be the full fine, there's travel costs per inspector, inspectors would have to spend some office/court time, etc. that would bring it down from the potential maximum of ~$1,800,000 each factoring in vacation and holidays).
Even Republicans could get behind it! "We're reducing the direct budget of the department, but authorizing it to hire additional inspectors in order to bring in additional revenue that can be utilized to bring the budget to or above its current levels." It's a cost reduction measure!
There's precedent for this; the Federal False Claims Act lets you sue on behalf of the government if you spot someone defrauding a federal program (in this case, perhaps if they take SNAP?). If your suit is succesful you get 15%-30% of the recovery for your troubles. There are "private attorney general" rules on the books at a state level too. I think it's kind of elegant, we can all see that inspections are understaffed, but non-compliance is often not that hard to spot and document. I'd propost that employees should have some whistleblower protection (and relief from NDAs and such) for building dossiers with supporting documentation of criminal fraud.
These provision are called "qui tam" from "qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur", or “who sues in this matter both for the king and for himself.”
I think they suit well with the US's history of bounty hunting, much like class action suits.
I believe Michigan has laws on the books that should be the model for this (the "Scanner law") - if you're overcharged at the register and the sale is completed, you have 30 days to get the price corrected plus ten times the amount of overcharge (between $1 and $5). Paying you the 'bonus' is optional, but if they don't do so you can file a suit for the greater of your actual damages or $250 (in small claims on your own or regular court which allows up to $300 in attorney fees).
An alternative would be to force stores with mischarge rates exceeding a specified level to close until they've completed a full audit of all shelf prices in the store but in some areas that could cause significant local hardship.
Pretty sure the best time to file tax-related stuff is before it's due and the second-best time is immediately after you become aware of it. Filing late is almost guaranteed to be better than not filing at all, and if there was no tax due then I suspect there also won't be late filing penalties.
I think a related but separate question would be "Can I do these things if the proceeds are going directly to charity instead of to me?"
I suspect it would be important that any funds never reached you, so you couldn't simply receive money then donate that amount. Playing a charity gig where the receipts go directly to the charity would likely be fine, streaming/Spotify revenue I don't know, acting in a movie might be out of the question if it's being professionally shot because the producer might have insurance or other requirements that only paid performers and crew can be on set, etc.
IIRC from the time I was waiting for employment authorization, I wasn't allowed to do any charity work that could otherwise be a paid position, so be very careful with this charity idea.
Some visas that are employment-limited specifically mention volunteering and charitable work as problematic. You do not need to personally gain financially. A crude way to tell is "is this an activity which someone could be paid for, even if I'm doing it for free?"
However the practical answer is ask. Some visas like the J1 allow this - even consulting, provided it meets a bunch of criteria and relevant people sign off. It's not a trivial process, but it's not outright forbidden.
From someone who's mostly avoided the AI craze so far, I think it comes down to a combination of two things.
1) "AI" is in many ways like the unreliable coworker so many of us have had in the past - maybe someone who talked a good game in interviews, but after you'd worked with them for a while you realize that you have to double-check everything they do for stupid/careless problems. In the worst case, you also have to do some hand-holding as they ask you for help with things that they should know how to do. They can produce good output but they can't be trusted to produce good (or even marginal) output so they're a net time sink.
2) In a frightening number of companies right now, that problem coworker is the owner's or manager's relative and cannot be avoided.
So boom, there you go, bad coworkers and a toxic culture that not just protects but promotes them.
