Apart from the copyright issues that parent mentions, there's also the issue of LLM spewing BS confidently, which is why Google has been hesitant to roll it out as their default.

[1] https://github.com/coder/code-server

The scheme you propose had already been proposed by Elad Cohen, but with "evil" intentions as they're linked to a IPv4 misappropriation scheme[1].

[1] https://mybroadband.co.za/news/security/367188-the-great-afr...

> Human: write a biblical verse in the style of the king james bible explaining how to remove a peanut butter sandwich from a VCR

> ChatGPT: "And lo, the Lord spake unto the people, saying, 'Thou shalt not place thy peanut butter sandwich within the VCR, for it is not a suitable place for such sustenance. But if perchance thou hast done so, fear not, for I shall show thee how to remove it. First, take a soft cloth and gently dab at the corners of the sandwich, using small and measured movements. Then, using a thin and pliable tool, carefully loosen the sandwich from its sticky confines, taking care not to damage the VCR. And when thou hast succeeded, give thanks unto the Lord for thy deliverance.'"

> Apparently it may also come as a surprise to some readers and the researchers themselves that other root program members are in fact international governments, and some are also defense companies, or companies who are wholly-owned by defense companies and/or state-owned enterprises, meaning "businesses" that are completely owned or controlled by governments. Further, some of those governments are not free/democratic and in fact some have tragic modern histories of basic human rights violations. We are none of those things and our company does not identify with those values. Given this point above, why of all potential targets are these researchers interested in TrustCor? They could go after countries with human rights violations that have placed a CA in the program.

Your average user is unlikely to begin to understand why a CA would be trustworthy, and a web of trust model only works for social situations but not for certificate distribution.

Further, no lawyer would advise making a statement such as "we've been asked to avoid discussing our legal structure because we may be punished by tax authorities", because the statement itself can be taken as an admission of wrongdoing.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33814291

Further, even in times of stress, lashing out isn't the best decision. If I were interrogated by a cop and I called them a bunch of names, I would attract additional charges, on top of being suspected of commiting the crime that I've been accused of.

And unlike the more vocal counterparts of minorities who take to the streets when they feel aggrieved, people with adverse mental health keep suffering in isolation, so it's difficult to make a political issue out of it in the first place.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33683194

Points: 1

# Comments: 0