No state does. States are just political constructs.

The Apple user’s mind cannot comprehend this…

Unironically, yes.

I’m glad they’re calling them vigilantes, because a vigilante is someone who punishes crimes outside the bounds of the law. Good to see media acknowledging that Flock cameras are criminal.

Stage 1: You pay for it, it is the product

Stage 2: It is free, you are the product (enshittification)

Stage 3: You pay for it, you are the product (late-stage enshittification)

How old are you? Because no, there is no key to revoke for a UMD. There is no “banning” discs from a PSP.

The fact you apparently are so young you aren’t aware things used to be different, is proving the point here.

And more importantly, no the license was not the same; the physical disc fell under what is called the First Sale Doctrine:

The first sale doctrine is a legal principle codified in U.S. copyright law at 17 U.S.C. § 109. It states that once a copyright owner sells or gives away a physical copy of a work, their control over the distribution of that specific copy ends.

When companies began to use license keys for instance as a backdoor route to bypass it, it was a big legal deal.

I think you’re confusing copyright ownership, which was always the same (since video games have existed, that is), with end user licenses, the nature of which are very different now.

No, it’s literally not. Sony can take away your license for a digital game for any or no reason. They cannot take away your license for the physical good outside of very specific cases (and they will require a court order to do it, unlike revoking a digital license).

Imagine living somewhere that brings suits against companies for hurting workers, without the workers themselves needing to pay exorbitant fees to bring a class action.

Not in this way. I can literally still play my UMD games on my old PSP, and Sony can’t do shit about it.

“I’ll maybe hurt you a little less, and I’ll keep doing the bad thing” isn’t a compromise; a compromise has to benefit both sides, and not being harmed is just the default expectation, not a benefit.

The more genAI is influencing our ideas, the less they are our ideas

This makes no sense to assert specifically about LLMs. Everything influences our ideas. If “influenced by external stimulus or input” == “not your ideas”, then people literally have no ideas of their own.

Just because the problem isn’t new, doesn’t mean it isn’t accelerating. There are tons of problems that were true when Eleanor Rigby was released that are worse today.

And not one of those is going to be fixed by getting rid of LLMs, nor are they the product of LLMs uniquely, so sell me on why LLMs uniquely need this outsize focus? To me, this feels like adopting the flavor du jour of liberal media faux resistance that denies individuals tools, in pursuit of some supposed moral high ground, while leaving the structural use of that tool by government in place, similar to anti-gun arguments.

Before I spend time on your potential moving target, how about you tell me the parameter size that you consider the cutoff to not be “tiny toy model[s]”?

DeepSeek, Meta etc that release open-weight models are not doing so out of the good of their heart. Those are commodity products, just under different licensing conditions. Don’t fall for their open-washing attempts.

Those are open weight models. There are also open-source models. Which is what I said. Which are not commodity products.

transformed into a commodity product

Which is an argument against commercial AI, not open source AI.

respecting the wishes of a person that spend a good portion of their life honing a skill and creating artworks

This is just making a copyright argument from a moral paradigm rather than a legal one. Stealing a physical painting from that artist is wrong. Defacing a physical painting of that artist’s is wrong. Making a digital copy of a digital image is not wrong. You are creating a moral argument for ownership of an IDEA, even if it is a very specific and unique idea.

“Intellectual property” is not anarchist, no matter how much you insist it’s mean not to treat it as such.

isolates us from eachother

This is a question of how people use it, not something it encourages or forces. “Eleanor Rigby” was written 50 years before LLMs existed.

makes us more predictable

What do you mean by this?

GenAi is currently in use by various militaries for the purpose of killing people

I think there is likely a misunderstanding regarding what is GenAI and what is not.

Vision models that e.g. do facial recognition, or direct drones, are not GenAI.

The only generative AI use I could think of in a “kill chain” is Israel using it for creating lists of people to target, but that system (abhorrently and psychopathically named “Where’s Daddy”) just used LLMs to ‘prioritize’ the names that the IDF and Mossad fed into it, it didn’t actually come up with the names or intelligence. It was about speeding up their killing machine, and has nothing to do with how or what LLMs as a technology do.

There’s an entire discussion (which has been being had for decades by forensics experts and lawyers and privacy advocates) about people using/trusting computers as trusted black boxes, and this is an extension of that; plausible deniability to do the action you already intended to do via “the computer said so” as a shield.

Hell yeah!

Yes, which is why in any conflict that has been ongoing this long, it’s critical to look at the structural balance of power. When one side has fighter planes and missiles and tanks and the backing of the largest military, and the other has small arms and homemade unguided rockets, the equivalency of their rhetoric is not as important as their ability to act on it.

Artists spend many hours of their life practising and planning artworks and a carefully crafted grafitti in public place is not abandoned or unattended.

That’s funny, because as a former writer, we absolutely expect our stuff to be painted over, tagged over, covered with tarps, etc. And yes, they are 100% unattended and usually abandoned (I only ever touched up a tag once, that I was particularly proud of).

But more importantly, downloading art online doesn’t destroy the art. That’s the biggest problem with your analogy; you’re trying to equate “copying something against the artist’s will” with “causing damage”, and that’s not how copying works.

A firearm uses (combustion-created) compressed gas to launch a metal projectile at high speeds. There are very few cases in which that projectile won’t damage whatever it hits, and obviously that is the intent of guns. Whether they’re used for good (hunting and defense) or evil (murder and domination), they are intended to cause damage.

LLMs use weighted maps to produce text that approximates the text they were trained on. In almost no cases can an LLM directly harm someone, though like anything it can be used to harm one’s self. The harms of LLMs are almost universally byproducts of the ways that companies choose to create and operate them, not things that are intrinsic to the LLM itself.

If all you’ve ever known is Nestle, it’d be easy to conclude creating chocolate requires being evil child-labor-using, farmer-murdering, land-stealing capitalists. But of course chocolate can actually be made at home. It’s the scale and the profit motive that drive the harms, not the technology of chocolate bars themselves.

I’ve used local models to do a bunch of different things, but the main ones are:

1. Separate policy debate speech docs into component evidence ‘cards’, to create an online corpus of evidence for other debaters to use
2. Write scripts to help manage my media library
3. Help maintain my server stack