Good riddance.

I honestly don't follow it. People creating nudes of others and using the Internet to distribute it can be sued for defamation, sure. I don't think the people hosting the service should be liable themselves, just like people hosting Tor nodes shouldn't be liable by what users of the Tor Network do.

That's the charitable coloring. Owning concepts or ideas, and trying to police others' use of ideas you """own""" is absurd.

Hopefully, future legislation will cater less to publishers and copyright trolls. I'm not optimistic though. While certain kinds of publishers are indeed becoming less powerful, sports-related media conglomerates are successfully lobbying for more surveillance.

The general population will likely get the worst of both worlds, with copyright trolls getting to enforce unjust laws against regular people, while big tech gets to pay their way out.

This step could come before a police raid.

This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers.

The paycheck. I had never expected work to NOT be depressing by definition, though. The only reason I'm working on what my employee wants me to is because I can't afford to live otherwise. They'll get the minimal effort needed for me to not get fired, but not a single minute more.

Clearly is it not a belief that no one in the USA supports, as seem in the discourse against ICE and immigration contrl.

> The debate is on "how" it's being done not that we shouldn't have immigration control.

Not necessarily, no. "The debate" is too vague to elaborate in favor or against what you're saying.

But yes, there are people against immigration control period, and period in favor of reforms to make immigration easier for workers, not harder. But propaganda will keep putting workers against each other, instead of companies lobbying against workers.

No, they do not. Quite the opposite, they want to live their lives quietly and normally like everyone else.

The only law they "undermine" is the one forbidding them to living in a place due to a birth right. Civil disobedience to unjust laws like that is correct and moral.

> make people feel unheard leaving people to elect demagogues like trump

Disagree. IMO the biggest reasons for Trump's election were inflation and raising living costs. Under those conditions, picking a group of people to elect as the "enemy" is a tact to win elections, but has nothing to do with the underlying cause for the bad conditions in the first place.

Because that idea consists of harming someone over their birth circumstances, rather than any objective harm they may have done.

... "We" (a lot of people, not everyone who posts here) don't believe that. Lots of people disagree with immigration control as a concept period.

The existence of that app is an abomination; the fact tax payer money is being allocated to it is tragicomic. Not spending it and just giving it as tax returns to the population would be so much better than kidnapping people over being born in the wrong place.

We should work on fixing that, then.

I agree with your point about big tech companies salivating at opportunities to collect rent. IP is part of the problem.

Not the person you're replying to, but I've found that some people do argue against LLMs themselves (as in, the tech, not just the usage). Specially in humanities/arts cycles which seem to have a stronger feeling of panic towards LLMs.

Clarifying which one you're talking about can save a lot of typing/talking some times.

I didn't miss it, I just don't buy it. Lots of people create and write in their free time, without any financial incentives whatsoever.

I'm okay with writing books for profit, though. But if your business case depends on artificially limiting what users can do with their copies, then your business is fundamentally unethical, whether it's a one-man company or OpenAI. It's not a bad thing for such a business to go under.

Although getting rid of the copyright/IP nonsense for works that already exist is a big win on its own.

IP as a concept needs to die.

Have the biggest models be legally forced to be released in the open for end users, then. Best of both worlds.

Wait a few years, and you'll even be able to run those models in commodity hardware.

Enshittification in order to give returns to shareholders suck. The tech is great and empowering for the commons.