keep in mind that the "obstruction" charge can be and is abused as a catchall charge.

Even if somehow you had the super hero ability to create this silicon out of thin air and even double it, I'd argue that it wouldn't drive down prices.

Simply because both the AI datacenter's need and their ability to pay is bigger then the consumer market. So far it seems that the more silicon you throw at AI, then the better your reasoning output. So the cheaper the chips, the more these datacenters will buy. Arguably they would buy even more because then you can tell investors that you have more powerful models (due to more compute) and your price per output is cheaper (because average hardware is cheaper).

I think if people looked at LLM as just tools or interns, which you should always check or question their conclusions, then they'd 1) not believe everything LLMs tell you and 2) they would get better responses after critiquing the LLM response.

But it's never about the kids. It's always about surviellance and tracking people. For corporations it allows better monetization while for the government it allows better control.

He himself says that some AI assisted projects are actually good while other's aren't so. Devil's advocate can say that it's a matter of quality and also a matter of interest. And quality in some manner is a matter of taste - for example there is a market for regular fast food and organic or more high quality fast food, while others never take part.

He says that "Does your offering contribute anything to the community?" is the bar that should be met in regards whether something made with AI should be shared or published. But let's me honest, a good number of things people made or commented or did even before LLMs didn't meet that bar, and second is that most people think their pet project or pet whatever they made or created does contribute to the community. I have a senior security leader in my organization that thinks his Claude Code security scanner he made is amazing while I think it's a piece of garbage.

For example, copyright duration is far longer than most people think (life of author plus seventy (or plus ninety-five years if corporation). Corporations treat copyright as a way to create moats for themselves and freeze competitors than as a creative endeavor. Most creative works earn little to nothing anyway, while a tiny minority generate the most revenue. And it's not easy to get a copyright or atleast percieved to be easy, so again it incentivises those that can afford lawyers to navigate the legal environment. Also, enforcement of copyright law requires surviellance and censorship.

Truthfully I think there will be a time when people will look at current copyright law the same way we now look at guilds in the middleages.