In my opinion, the governments should deploy open-weight AI countermeasures. Because it seems to me that it is impossible to efficiently fight AI-powered criminals without AI.

When only AI-restricting regulations would be put in place, the criminals would, in my opinion, just ignore it. We as a society have a difficult time tracking even the illegal gun or drug dealers. I cannot imagine how could one hope to "regulate" something that can be downloaded as a file and run on a computer.

These AI countermeasures should be open because it provides transparency as to whether the countermeasures actually work. Independent testing, tuning, refining or retraining is then possible.

If the closed models were used instead, their provider could at any point in time shut down the entire operation. Or sabotage it under the hood.

The important part is that with the closed, black box, proprietary models, one can never know what they are being served.

What should be gated and limited is the commercial use: reselling, relicensing, using for business, etc.

> the optional payment (I promise you nobody's gonna do that)

Such "promises" seem to be based on no facts. Moreover, they contradict my personal experience.

I would be very interested in using that business model. In fact, I have already used it with other types of services. I have paid for software that is open source, free to download and free to use. Multiple times. Simply because I like the software and I wanted to thank the authors for it in some tangible way.

It seems to me that the bands or musicians should distribute their music via their own websites. I think that then the users would care much more.

I would put the uncompressed flac files of my music directly on my website for everyone to download.

That does not mean that I would not be interested in getting paid. But I would approach it differently. I would charge for broadcasting it on YouTube or Spotify. Or for playing it in venues.

But I would not charge a regular Joe for it. They would be free to download it, play it and redistribute it in any noncommercial way they see fit.

The most important part is this. I would encourage the "buy after you like" model. Everyone is free to listen. And who likes what they hear, is welcome to buy it.

In my opinion, many small bands and solo musicians would benefit from that model. And I think it would also create some goodwill among their fans.

It also would not shut down the mainstream delivery channels. So if someone still wanted to listen to it over Spotify and pay for it that way, they would still be able to do so.

No. None of the local ISPs offer speeds above 1 Gbps.

However, I use FriendlyElec NanoPi R5C as the main entrypoint router. It has two 2.5G ethernet ports. It costs less than 100 euros. And it runs OpenWRT.

It is not a multiport, multi-gigabit device though. And I have not tested it above 1 Gbps so I am unsure about its real world performance.

Great. I am really wondering why should the customers trust these manufacturers.

At this point I would not use any router with vendor-provided black box firmware. Full stop.

I would always install OpenWRT or something similar on it before using it.

And if that is not possible for whatever reason, I would not even think about buying such a device.

But the people studying math and the related fields are able to do division by hand on paper. They are just slow when doing it.

I believe that the calculator was meant to solve the slowness problem rather than eliminate the need to fundamentally understand division.

This seems like a very good principle to adhere to in general. Anything that is funded by the public needs to serve the public interest, in my opinion.

Putting public money into e.g. proprietary software and proprietary services that are then operated and gated by a few selected companies, for profit, with their only goal being the rent seeking via long term government contracts, is in my opinion far from being in the public's best interest.

Is that characterization based on some objective facts or benchmarks?

I am unaware of such a capability of Cloudflare.

I believe it is the site administrators who have inserted Cloudflare in between their sites and their users.

Usually it is done for rational reasons of establishing a protection against bots. But what is less rational, in my opinion, is when everyone uses the same provider for that.

Because it indirectly turns Cloudflare into a monopoly. And monopolies often converge to a state when they start to abuse their position.

Please do not use the term communist lightly, i.e. as an umbrella term for people who express ideas that e.g. more government control or regulation is in some circumstances reasonable.

The only forms of communism that have ever actually materialized in society have all been authoritarian regimes or outright dictatorships. Where the only "truth" is dictated by the governing leader or party. Where you cannot express your opinion freely. Where you cannot e.g. go to a university or have a slightly better job unless you are loyal to the party establishment. Where people are afraid to talk to their neighbors about politics because they cannot know who is going to report them for anti-government opinions. Where people are persecuted, imprisoned or even killed for their opinions.

To the best of my knowledge, Bernie Sanders has never expressed such ideas.

One might argue that here we are talking about the purely academic definition of communism. But unfortunately, in the real world, there is no such thing as academic communism. So far it has always come with the dictatorship and with people who abuse it. Always.

Perhaps the assumption is that these large AI companies need large datacenters to operate and that is how they will be regulated. But what about the datacenters outside the US jurisdiction? And what about local AI?

In the old days, the computers were huge and there was one per city. Now, several decades later, we all have plenty of our own computers. I cannot imagine why the trend would not continue with AI. Over time, it is in my opinion plausible that most of our common needs would be satisfied by local AI running on one's home servers or even phones.

How is that going to be regulated by owning a controlling stake in a few US AI companies?

I do not see into the details of what Mr. Bernie Sanders is suggesting. It seems to me though that his idea of somehow regulating the AI needs further development. Because the currently discussed approaches seem to me like a hot take that has not been thought over very well.

No one pretends that everything else is fine.

It is in my opinion reasonable to call out any violations of any law or any violations of the users' or companies' privacy as they are spotted. And everyone is best suited to spot issues in areas or fields in which they operate.

I think that there is a way to change that.

If an application runs significantly better on lower end hardware while delivering the same results, the customers should prefer it. It is just a matter of promoting it that way.

That would be an intentional poisoning of the models with biased or outright untruthful data.

I believe that many people would be unwilling to use such models.

Why do you believe so?

As long as there is a clear indication somewhere on the webpage (in the metadata or in the text itself) that a specific portion of a text is an ad, a browser extension will be able to block it.

And I assume that there are laws mandating that the ads must be clearly marked in order to be distinguishable from the genuine content.

Enshittification of the AI tools has officially begun.

Maybe we will soon find e.g. AI-generated pictures of ourselves in branded clothes or using branded products to appear among our photos, discretely disguised as genuine photos with a little badge in the corner indicating that it is actually a paid "promotion".

And so on. And that would still be, in my opinion, just the beginning.

How is that relevant to the topic of this discussion?

Compilation from higher order languages to the machine code is deterministic. It is sufficient to review and well-test the tool which does the translation. Given the same input, the output will always be the same.

Transformation of a natural language prompt to code by an AI tool is non-deterministic. The outputs will vary between runs. Therefore, it is always necessary to verify them.

That is the difference.

Agents might get better. But who will own the code and take responsibility for it? The AI agent? The company who created the AI agent?

If e.g. a car crashes and does not deploy its airbags because the AI agent made a mistake in the airbag code, will the manufacturer be able to shift the blame to OpenAI or Anthropic?

I do not think so.

And therefore I believe that no matter how good the AI agents will ever become, the ultimate responsibility for the code will always remain with the companies that create the code. Regardless of which AI tools they use.

I see no other way to bear that responsibility by the company than to have people internally who will be responsible. And those people, if they actually want to own that responsibility, would need to understand that code themselves, in my opinion. Because relying on a non-deterministic AI agent's vetting is fundamentally unreliable, in my opinion.