So:

- are you certain this "revenue" doesn't come from ads promoting scams? or you simply don't care?

- what do you think about LLMs "licensing" the content so you get royalties instead of putting these artificial obstacles?

> We are releasing Opus 4.7 with safeguards that automatically detect and block requests that indicate prohibited or high-risk cybersecurity uses.

Ah f... you!

I believe than N companies using an open source project and contributing back would make this burden smaller than one company using the same closed-source project.

Then good, that overengineered, intentionally-crippled crap should go away.

- the package name is already taken and to replace app with the same name the package needs to be signed with the same key which you don't have

- even if you modify package name, it's a system privileged app, privileged apps may only be installed by Google/vendors (unless you're recompiling the OS [64GiB RAM needed])

- if you strip all the privileges, functions like call recording won't work.

Same for contacts and so on..

I don't see them altering the permission model, you probably meant the possibility of modifying the system by tools such as Magisk, which indeed make it possible to install software much less restricted..

.. but you can do that on any device with an unlockable bootloader. Graphene/Lineage only remove some Google spyware.

Try to install a Lineage phone app on GrapheneOS to understand what I mean :)

Google can do everything as they control the system - this gives full innovation capabilities. Then there are vendors which are restricted by Google via CDD (checked by CTS/VTS), they might add "privileged apps" but they can't touch what Google does on the system..

And only then there are regular developers/users, apps which they can install have very limited capabilities, they can't extend the system beyond a limited set of APIs that Google allows them to use.

This limits third party innovation already, but Google constantly makes it worse by restricting third party app capabilities even further under the guise of "security"..

Translation: we aim to make defensive capabilities available to US and their vassals so they can protect critical infrastructure, while ensuring countries that are independent can't protect against US attacking their critical infrastructure.

Fortunately, this plan will backfire - the model capability is exaggerated and these "safeguards" don't reliably work.

Of course, if people are fired and only capital owners / AI experts get to earn anything then this is wrong and a revolution is obviously needed and unavoidable.

But for me, the best outcome would be if it was AI that did all the jobs so people could focus on doing what they want, not that we'd go back to pre-AI era..

Initially however we need to balance between full wealth redistribution and keeping the incentive to develop AI further.

Of course by AI I mean really useful AI, the real part, not the marketing part.

It's like "hey you can say mean things about me but don't attack my family while I attack yours". Not that this is directed at him personally, but it's just this mindset of wealthy people..

We need to teach non-technical people that in this reality, a scam might come directly from the real seemingly "reputable" company.