whizzter

Right, I can agree to a certaint extent that the model itself can be equated to storage.

I think you misjudged my intent with that initial comment, it was mostly that I'd be feeling easier about AI usage if I knew the models WEREN'T trained on GPL'ed code, people producing GPL'ed software has historically been quite profilic in certain areas and the odds of copyrightable parts of GPL'ed code not showing up in AI code managing certain fileformats is definetly nonzero.

Ie, I'd be happier using Claude Code-nogpl, I'd be fine with adding BSD,etc copyright notices if given provenance information from the model, being in the GPL minefield because they don't really seem to track inputs is another.

Not more than accidentally or when actually interested in something that pops up, but as a friend said, I'm not a usual core customer so I've never been the baseline.

The thing they're doing correctly right now imho, is that AI mode is mostly toggled for things that passes a quick questions filter (probably low probability of a purchase, like "global illumination methods" giving a decent overview of the field) while if you just type green shoes it'll put out an assortment of online and local shopping options.

Now if as someone said in the sibling comments, Google is gouging their customers with the new auction model that's another problem, but if I was a shareholder I'd be less worried about an exodus of end users to OpenAI,etc than I was a year ago.

For me Google has stayed as the default interface, if I need to ask a basic query (probably searches that don't yield much revenue but keeps me on Google), the results were becoming worse a 1-3 years ago but now the AI parts of Google is now good-enough(TM) that I mostly don't need to go to a separate interface, as long as users aren't fleeing they can probably continue to get paid for ADs (also the if YT ads are included, those have really become obnoxious but probably well monetized).

Where does it say that it's carrier configuration? Looking through the page it mentions WAP and PDU, seems PDU from my skimming is just a part of encoding WAP messages, so basically anyone being able to send WAP messages onto the network will have the carrier happily retransmitting it unless carriers starts blocking them/filtering these incorrect ones?

Apple knows how much of a premium they can charge vs other manufacturers, if everyone else starts dropping they will as well.

Yes, but the irony here is that Apple used to (or perhaps still has) forbidden using other HTTP(S) clients in iOS apps (or perhaps Appstore in general) than the built-in out of security concerns like this would address by using 1 central storage instead of multiple ones were one won't get timely updates.

Ah, so I might end up not looking like a fool for marking it green, good to know! :)

A while back I was thinking it wouldn't be enforced, but the entire Craft-clones and REA tools usage explosion kinda hints that disassembling/rebuilding the source is cheap enough that LLM's(ironically) could probably quickly find culprits if you had suspicions about certain apps.

You mean as in binning? High defect rates for chips but they're burned to disable non-working parts and sell them as non-pro chips and accumulate the good ones ?

This caught my eye, remember how the eMudhra certificates had weirdly low parameters, like 4 and others in the single digits?

"Mbed TLS - Medium, CVSS 5.9 - A buffer-length typo reduces a 2048-bit DH modulus to one byte. TLS 1.2 DHE_RSA sessions are decryptable when the client accepts the broken parameters. GOAHEAD-SA-2026-0005."

Not familiar with those implementation details but was this the root cause?

No, the question is, if the GPL'ed code/structure is more or less recovered during inference, would a court rule the result to be covered by the GPL?

I know there was some cases in the past where people swapped licences and changed variablenames,etc but the essential code clearly remained.

Does it matter? Lawyers don't know either since most majorer cases are still in progress.

So far it seems more cases that have been decided in lower instances or has been settled or gone in the direction of the party with most money for lawyers, still even in those cases there seems to be a slight tilt towards rightsholders.

I'm not saying anything categorically, but if some cases go all the way and towards rightsholders, it could become a real shitshow in the software industry since we've adopted AI so heavily and the non-significatng portion of public GPL licenced code could bite people in the ass.

I think technically such a model should abide by the licence of the inputs, hence all models would probably be GPL if the FSF had resources to fight it and the legal profession had an inkling of the processes involved.

Or maybe the FSF is just waiting for everyone using AI code to become hooked and then subpoena every Antrophic/OAI/Codex customer and force the most massive source release in history (If Adobe/MS would file lawsuits vs the Craft apps and with their resources create legal precedent it could create chaos, maybe the only part stopping them right now from filing lawsuits is them realizing it could backfire since they're heavy AI users themselves).

Aaron Swartz pulled down by the legal system for trying to get things accessible for people instead of being blocked by profit requirements.

Companies copying things to make profit for themselves not being held accountable.

Progress is one thing, injustice is another.