morningsam

It's very obviously LLM-generated if you've been reading some of the many other LLM-generated comments you'll find at the bottom of the comments on almost all other submissions to this website. Pangram says 100% LLM, too, but you don't need Pangram to see this, just compare the way it's written to all the other ones.

>not every global .com website owner wants to use only have the choice of US-run CAs

.com wouldn't be covered by the proposal made in the post I replied to, because it isn't a ccTLD.

I also disagree with the post author's clarification in a sibling comment, saying that there should be a few major (US) CAs that can sign everything: As I originally understood it, the idea would really be to restrict signing of certs for ccTLD domains to CAs in the country in question, and only to those. There would not be a US CA that can sign certs for French domains and vice versa.

>most Rust projects (foo.rs) would probably not trust the Serbian CAs

Such domains are misuses of ccTLDs as originally envisioned anyway, and AFAIK the relevant standards bodies still see it that way, too.

>it seems possible that Chinese website owners might prefer to use non-Chinese CAs

For what reason? If it's a matter of resistance to government interference, it doesn't help, because ccTLD DNS records are ultimately under the control of that country's government anyway. It might make sense for very small countries in which operating a CA full-time isn't worth it for anyone; perhaps it should be possible for those to be grouped together, sure.

I came here looking for a comment suggesting just that. But surely there is some massive issue with this idea we are overlooking? Otherwise I don't see why it hasn't already been implemented long ago, it seems so obvious as a mitigation.

>but for the rest of us we will live in a mix of medieval life style assisted by robotic and low tech

Awfully optimistic. Why would they let you do that?

I take that back, actually: I didn't realize they release them under a modified MIT license requiring large corporate users to enter into commercial agreements. So it is in fact proprietary. Sorry for spreading misinformation.

It's proprietary only until the end of the month, when its weights will be released.

I wonder if the other models were worse than usual for that particular video because they "dislike" making an advertisement for another company's model. A test with a generic video might be more meaningful.

>"it's fine if you're an individual but not if you're large"

That's not what the GP said, they were referring to someone who "builds their own moat where they solely can profit and excludes others from the freedoms they themselves enjoyed".

I don't want to speak for them but I guess that LLM companies which release exclusively open weights models, or better yet, open weights plus training pipeline sources, would not fall into this category.