If they want to use it, they kind of have to. AGPL infects all of your products source code for every project that uses it. You either need to relicense it under a more restrictive license or basically release all of your source code for every product you own. Siemens is a for profit company, they will do that vs what Stalin... er, I mean Stallman wants.

I really have no skin in this game right now, but I've seen what highly infectious licenses can do when you're putting in thousands of hours coding a commercial product on top (basically, the GPL2 rebranded GPL3 DLL code all had to be removed). Yeah, if it was all paid for by someone, great, but it wasn't. The FOSS model is actually built on top of OS companies footing the bill for software products to be built on top of them, not what people think, which is people developing software in their free time. I do the latter, for FOSS, but it doesn't pay my bills.

If all the negative publicity accomplishes is getting these small towners better deals and maybe some reasonable restrictions on noise and resource use then it's a pretty big win compared to the status quo of fuck you, I'm eating.

That depends. Do you mean a useful LLM vs a Linotronic? Because you can't reasonably make either thing at home out of nothing. You could make either thing out of parts, e.g. fine-tuning a LLM, or assembling a printer out of parts, or you could make a simpler example of either thing at home easily. You can't even afford the power bill to train a useful LLM that can, for example, explain things to you.

I'd have to know a lot more before I'd call for conviction, but it's not surprising if arrest was warranted (ha ha ha) because she wasn't researching a book or whatever. It's pretty hard to be non-suspicious about something like that.

I'm not saying stupidity is a crime here, I'm saying it's concerning coupled with the potential threat.

It's especially irritating considering that [IMO obvs] AmiMojo is right and improving Firefox would be a better use of these tokens, so if the guy is being irritating around a Firefox fork, then it's extra ironic — and therefore extra-stupid.

I am not against all AI use, but I do see serious copyright problems, and I also see serious quality problems. I think you need serious chops to address the latter, and who knows where the chips will fall with the former?

If it could reasonably be construed as a threat, then it has to be investigated as a threat to be responsible. Is this a reason why some people might want to run models locally? Yes, and it's a good thing you can do that with any decent game machine, or with many other relatively inexpensive computers. But you can't just run a service and monitor it and then ignore what people are using it for, that's not a thing. If people are going to consume SaaS then they need to be aware that the owners of the platform are going to spend some effort attempting not to be accessories to any crimes.

(I failed at writing that comment organically)

Yeah, it turns out that actually IS what Claude told him to put into the comment. He's literally using it to write a shitty browser and AND to write shitty comments. What a failed human.

The fact is that she was arrested for making credible threats in the context of a managed and monitored service, proving that she is an idiot at best, and therefore potentially stupid enough to follow through on such a threat. This is what responsibility looks like all around, which is the only reason it's news.

"No was was harmed, no one was threatened, nothing happened.
This is some crazy big brother shit that should not happen"

Are you on the bad drugs? You just said nothing happened, then you said it shouldn't have happened. Well, it didn't. Why aren't you happy?

Yes, they are both bad and addictive.

Never too soon to point out that someone who doesn't respect choices in one area surely doesn't respect them in others.

Try learning to read. There were important parts in there you missed.

They aren't writing it, Claude is.

The AI isn't thinking. It's just predicting what looks most like it fits, when the choice is diddled with random numbers. That's the difference: humans are doing something more profound than rolling a die to decide which of the possible next things should actually come next.