"So, all you developers who are worried about LLMs taking your jobs, relax. It's nowhere near that level of sophistication, even if you are a junior developer."

Your opinion on that doesn't matter, it's that developer's company that does. AI companies aren't trying to sell AI on merit, they are selling to management on hype.

MAGA morons are a lot larger market than government phones, although it's probably for both.

Corporations have a staff that manages their IP, one of their jobs is reviewing their portfolio to make sure it meets corporate goals. A patent they do not see as of value will not have ongoing fees paid, simple as that. It's not about how much money was saved, it's about a failure to identify the value of the particular patent entirely.

I do understand the concept, I'm saying that it's a Rube Goldberg approach to the issue. The patent is granted by the government in the first place, they don't need to give it away and then buy it back.

And why would a company accept a contract to manufacture a drug when it is far more profitable to apply for patents and then sell them back to the government?

A patent is property manufactured by the government that ceases to exist if the government ceases to exist. It's not clear why a government would buy a patent, they may as well just pay a corporation for nothing. Better off funding research, which until now the government does, then NOT granting such patents (or granting patents but making research funding contingent on pricing control). Buying a patent by the government is merely invalidating that patent, something a government can do for free, theoretically.

But in the case of our government and our health care system, reducing problems in the population is arguably not the goal. Besides, a more universally effective solution would be single payer, it would give purchasing power to that payer to negotiate prices, regardless of the patent. This drug is expensive in the US because of our corrupt system, it is much cheaper elsewhere WITHOUT buying patents.

Of languages that suck, Java doesn't really suck! For languages that do not use resources well, Java does not use resources poorly!

Garbage collected languages do not use memory well. Applications that avoid dynamic memory use can mitigate that shortcoming.

a language may have cruft but that doesn't mean code written in that language does, and things like namespaces don't account for 17 out of every 20 lines of code. Yes, different languages could have different line counts, but not differences so great.

Bullshit. An 85% reduction would be 20 lines of code reduced to 3 lines. There is no explanation for such a reduction, and dead code isn't code.

The courts should not be making law, they should be applying law. The problem should not be addressed through a class action lawsuit.

Given that it is an AI and not a human, it's not clear that it can ever be plagiarism. To plagiarize you need to be an author, to be an author you need to be a human.

"Maybe Meta made subtle changes in its training recipe that accidentally worsened the memorization problem."

There is no memorization problem, "photographic memory" is an achievement. Violation of copyright occurs during inference, that's where the problem is. Humans with "photographic memory" aren't a problem and aren't copyright violators, unless they use there ability to reproduce protected works.

AI developers need to make products with the same constraints and respect as is expected of humans, they should not be developing products incapable of exceeding human performance.

"...close to 85% reduction in lines of code..."

Extremely unlikely. Worse yet, anyone who would claim this is clearly not a programmer.

AIUI, your costs can't (or couldn't) generally be passed on when using the small claims system. Has that changed? It's been a while since I went through the process, so it's possible that my information here is out of date.

There is obviously a personal data angle here. There might also be a defamation angle if the system works as implied by TFS, since it appears that someone's reputation has been affected because someone else lied about them and this has demonstrably caused harm? If there was more than one relevant incident then there might also be a harassment angle.

Please be careful with that advice about requesting compensation in a Letter Before Action, though. There are fairly specific rules for what you can and can't claim under our system and just going in with claiming some arbitrary figure of a few thousand pounds in "compensation" for vague damages is far from guaranteed to get the result you're hoping for. If someone were serious about challenging this kind of behaviour, they might do better to consult with a real lawyer initially to understand what they might realistically achieve and what kinds of costs and risks would be involved.

I suspect you've seen exactly zero of those videos, the question is why would that be a reason not to want a camera?