If they want to do business in Belgium, that business is subject to Belgian law.

That's not overreach, that's the law of the land.

It doesn't matter that the IA is not itself Belgian.

That's not how law works.

This case it is about Belgian law, which applies in Belgium, not the entire EU. So if the IA have assets in, say, Ireland, that's outside of the scope.

If the IA were to break EU law, then that would be subject to European courts, not to Belgium directly.

NT

Every interesting property is undecideable.

They want a spam filter for proteins. Good luck with that.

It doesn't.

It starts with a virus injected via a web ad. The FOSS example is just to illustrate that that isn't even necessary. Even something as benign as a Counterstrike can be used to listen to you if you have a good enough mouse.

They write as if the AI could just show up on set to ninja someone's gig, without a user instructing it to generate video.

Comparing computer generated imagery to a person is misguided at best. Don't anthropomorphise computers, they hate that.

There is still a team of professional workers behind Tilly, making those vids. Even if no actor is required. Which means there is now a whole team "replacing" one actress.

And the SAG act as if that was somehow a threat? Do they want to encourage the producers to not hire them?

In case anyone is curious: From the article:

1. A Russian SL-16 rocket launched in 2004
2. Europe's Envisat satellite launched in 2002
3. A Japanese H-II rocket launched in 1996
4. A Chinese CZ-2C rocket launched in 2013
5. A Soviet SL-8 rocket launched in 1985
6. A Soviet SL-16 rocket launched in 1988
7. Russia's Kosmos 2237 satellite launched in 1993
8. Russia's Kosmos 2334 satellite launched in 1996
9. A Soviet SL-16 rocket launched in 1988
10. A Chinese CZ-2D rocket launched in 2019

Given that x = x.
Then, logically, assuming that x /= x is a mistake, yes? No?

Where x = to use a tool they own as that tool. That tool being a computer.

Installing software on a computer you own is not a wild abandonment of accountability.

Nor is wanting the manufacturer to be held accountable for the product the same as accepting that you do not own it. And it is not the objectivists who jail-break other people's neutered computers, it is the people who buy them.

Here is a clarification of how Randians are the opposite of anarchists,
and here is Louis Rossmann explaining what rights you think you don't have.

If you have a hammer, do you ask the maker what you can use it for? Or do you rely on it working as a hammer?

Yes, but who would use their fork over the original?

If they don't trust him, they can just pull a local copy and use that.
Or at least pin the last known good version.

They don't need to trust him to use his code.

But they do need him if they want his package to infect other systems.

Well, it says in the summary that "there's no evidence of malicious activity", and Hunted Labs have a long list of things this could potentially be used for.

Since Malinochkin himself doesn't seem to have any interest in exploiting this potential, he will have to hire someone who is more amenable. It is open source, yes, but forking fast-glob is not going to help with injecting bugs.

Your mistake is in assuming there is a difference between being able to do what you want and being able to do what you want.

Your Randians (who are the opposite of anarchists, actually) also want guarantees that their guns are fit for purpose, and if they build them themselves, they want guarantees that the material they use is fit for purpose as sold, and if they mine it themselves, they want guarantees that the mining equipment is fit for purpose and so on.

And your garden gnomes don't want to be locked into the walled garden either. The reason why jail-breaking exists is not because someone wants to burn someone else's things. That doesn't even make sense.

There is no difference. And there is no trade-off either: You can have the freedom to use it and the guarantee that it is usable, both at the same time. In fact, you cannot have either without the other.

In most industries, this is obvious and self-evident. To use a car analogy: A car that only drives to selected destinations isn't a car at all.

The same is true of computers, of course.

So in summary, you are wrong about anarchism, you are wrong about the wild west, you are wrong about consumer rights, you are wrong about the arguments for and against sideloading, and you are wrong about who is against it and why.

Are you being paid for misrepresenting the issue so thoroughly, or are you someone's mark?

It will not save any water, but it will make it easier to deny that there ever was water.

Supply them with vital technology?