At the very least the public should receive full open-weight open-source models in return for their transgressions. Failing that, may I suggest the guillotine?
Are you sure about that? Tech cuts both ways & asymmetric drone warfare has become cheaper than ever … how hard it is it to sink some yachts or down some jets?
But will you need overpriced Codex and Claude? Most business code is crappy SaaS and glorified CRUD apps & I can build those with Sonnet / DeepSeek just fine …
Besides the language barrier it’s actually also just simpler to do business with the Chinese. There are issues like censorship but they are known & can be routed around. It’s best to just ignore the US and move your business elsewhere.
Because Apple won’t give you access to what you need as a dev for this kind of thing on iPhone: always-on audio listening to multiple streams : ambient sound, my voice, whatever is playing in my headphones … think an AI assistant listens to audiobooks together with you and allows you to ask questions / lookup things etc …
Arguably what they win in input training cost they may lose in output censorship cost? But then again the line between Western “Guardrails” and Eastern “Censorship” isn’t all that clear.
But what about “assisted by” AI? Plenty of people use LLMs to enhance their writing abilities, like, say, ‘90s era grammar & spell check. Plenty of AI users are sophisticated enough to understand that dumping pure AI-Gen content is a bad idea. And what’s wrong with AI-enhanced speach?
“Linked their identities to X” is the key behavior to understand here. A lot of creative people have linked their identities to activities that are low on the food chain for AI. The close-minded creatives will resist AI because it threatens the identities they built for themselves, the open-minded ones will embrace AI as a tool to increase their creativity.
I thought the explicit goal of AI was to create systems that can do tasks that typically require human intelligence. That includes beneficial things like finding cures for diseases, technology innovation, etc … Wouldn’t it be a shame to limit this growth potential to protect friggin’ YouTubers?
Maybe go after the application, not the technology? Someone uses AI to explicitly plagiarize an artist’s content? Sure, go ahead & sue! But limiting the growth potential of a whole class of technology seems like a bad idea, a really bad idea actually if your military enemy had made that same technology a top priority for the next years …
This is going onto be extremely unpopular, but I think an argument could be made that we need to give AI research an exemption from copyright enforcement until we have a significant lead on China in AI development. They sure as hell are not going to obey Western copyright law in training their models.
… and this is how you lose an AI war to an enemy who has been ignoring copyright laws for decades. Unless it’s clear that “more data” does NOT produce faster progress it’s just safer to anllow indiscriminate scraping.