Pirating Windows for your own personal, private use, which will never directly make you a single dollar: HIGHLY ILLEGAL
Scraping your creative works so they can make billions by selling automated processes that compete against your work: Perfectly fine and normal!
Comments here: “Yeah right, I’ll believe it when they explain how.”
Article: literally has a section explaining how
Silly goose, you don’t own Windows — you license it.
It is kinda brilliant though, the way they set it up.
If you don’t like the joke, you can always fall back to the meta level: this is a 40-something dad recalling how dumb and cringe-worthy he and his friends were in their 20s.
Interacting with people whose tone doesn’t match their words may induce anxiety as well.
Have they actually proven this is a good idea, or is this a “so preoccupied with whether or not they could” scenario?
So, literally the story of the actual Luddites. Or what they attempted to do before capitalists poured a few hundred bullets into them.
Dude gave up his entire life to send a warning to as many people as possible. You think he’s gonna not post further warnings on Twitter?
It doesn’t seem like the ruling says copyright concerns justify overriding a right to anonymity under GDPR, but that the right to anonymity doesn’t exist in the first place.
I think that’s probably a better place to be, because it means they can legislate a right to anonymity.
I tried to be accurate instead of specific.
If I didn’t have to work anymore, I’d have more time to explore potential things to work on, so whatever project I’d pick right now would probably not be my main focus after 3 months of settling into my new life.
From where I am right now, I think it would be something to do with language-level features for distributed computing (but not that web3 nonsense). There’s a lot of potential to weaken the monopoly power of cloud providers by working on something like that, which is why it’s an under-explored area.
But I’d need more people to work with, and some specific use cases to go after. So I would expect the effort to change a lot by the time I actually found the right group of people to work with.
Work on projects that I think are important instead of just profitable.
As a contractor, your client isn’t allowed to dictate your work methods. It’s one of the things the IRS looks at when identifying misclassified employees.
Article says it’s likely an OpenAI partnership.
Current Setting: Breed Groot
This is why I said anything built on public work, should be public goods as well.
What if I don’t want certain people to build on my work, or to constrain the ways in which the build on it? (Non-commercial, share-alike, attribution, etc. clauses) Should I be able to?
That’s not a good comparison. Crypto was a (bad) solution looking for a problem. GenAI already has use-cases.
I didn’t mean to compare the technology – though there are some similar scam vectors, but that’s a different conversation.
I meant that there was a strong contingent of crypto fans back then who were saying – correctly – that “the mainstream system is corrupt and wields legislation as a weapon against consumers”. But their proposed alternative was a system that removed all regulation, including consumer protections.
I worry that there’s a trend in tech circles today that echoes that sentiment when it comes to AI.
I’m also rather disappointed that a substantial group of people who I used to assume I was aligned with – pirates and open-sourcerers – turned out to only be there for the free shit and not for the ethos.
An ethos which, to me, is something like: everyone has a right to participate in culture and be a part of the conversation, and everyone has a duty to acknowledge the work that enabled their own and do their best to be a good custodian of the upstream works.
Copyright law is broken. But I don’t think that means we have no obligations to each other as human beings when we build on each other’s work.
We had the same argument during the crypto craze. The financial system is broken, but 10 years later I think we all agree that crypto is pretty clearly not the answer.
How do they measure despair?
First, they sent the missionaries. They built communities, facilities for the common good, and spoke of collaboration and mutual prosperity. They got so many of us to buy into their belief system as a result.
Then, they sent the conquistadors. They took what we had built under their guidance, and claimed we “weren’t using it” and it was rightfully theirs to begin with.
Fun fact: The Luddites weren’t opposed to technology. In many cases, they built the machines they would later destroy.
What they opposed was the ownership structure. The fact that they could be 30x more productive, yet be paid less than before because the required skill level was lower, and the working conditions were now dangerous and demeaning.
Yet when someone says “luddite” now, what do you think? A dummy who’s afraid of having cool stuff?
It’s not even piracy though. I never saw anyone torrent Windows_XP_Home_Cracked.iso and go “Hey guys, check out this operating system I made!”