Came to look for/say this. As long as the consequences come to Sam Altman first, let's gooooooooo

While the reasons matter they aren't relevant to the point, which is that any cops covering for bad cops aren't good cops. If the system is designed to reject good cops, then both the system and the cops are bad.

The code is AGPL'd. If they don't have another mechanism for distributing the code to anyone entitled to receive it then kinda: closing the repo isn't illegal, but not observing the license is unlawful, and grounds for legal action.

People evacuating benefit from information on evacuation, like which routes are viable. This can change while in transit, and the cell phone network goes to shit when it's leaned on at all so you need a broadcast radio information source. So yes, they fucking well do.

To my mind, nobody wants this to get to this supreme court, because the outcome could be anything someone is willing to pay for. But it's going to wind up there eventually. If it does get there under this administration the most likely outcome is something beneficial to AI service providers, quite possibly allowing GenAI to wash away copyrights. But will it do so enough to allow someone else to copyright the result, or will it be basically uncopyrightable and therefore (in the case of code or other, similar output like instructions) protectable only with secrecy? That would be an interesting outcome.

Right, they're arguing that they should be allowed to knowingly sell products which produce radio interference which affects FCC-licensed use there, devices with a public safety interest no less. Also, if their lack of shielding is affecting AM radio, then it's almost certainly affecting other things as well. That was a weird argument.

But the whole thing is weird all over for the reasons stated. Getting the radio signal into the car isn't expensive or difficult. Practically any one of us could do it with an off the shelf module which costs twenty bucks with e-tail costs and profit baked in. They're already shielding the PCB in the antenna. It's got to cost them a few dollars per unit at the absolute most to add AM even if they put a whole receiver in there. Their arguments are crappy even from a distance.

The detective is paid to maintain the status quo first and think second, like every other cop, except that he's actually paid to think at some point.

It's AGPL, not just GPL

We had a small resurgence in some workers cleaning cabins, they switched protocol to using liquid before cleaning to trap dust from feces. It's never really contained.

No. Trump was overleveraged and the last bank that would do business with him was Deutsche Bank until he made whatever deal they made with the Russians... Pedo Jr. and Eric both told us they were banking with Russia.

I doubt this very, very heavily. If it were so they would have told us so already as their excuse. These days the typical radio antenna is an amplified module mounted to the roof, this is now cheap and it gives better reception without the sticking-up aerial or with just a short one.

We have bubonic plague infections every year in the United States. Very, very few, admittedly, but it's not like it's been eradicated. So there's still benefit in studying it.

Let's modify your analogy a bit. If someone has a recording a person starting to eat spaghetti, is it more or less likely that the recording will show them then having a drink of water? And if we instead had a series of comics of a person, and the first one says "I'm hungry," and the second shows the person ordering spaghetti., is it likely that they will then eat the spaghetti? Yes, even though they are fictional. Because apparently using fictional being's mental states is useful for modeling what they will do. In the same way, if the AI is modeling based on human emotional states, then recognizing that those are useful predictors for what will happen helps us predict more, whether or not they genuinely have those emotions.

If the chain of thought resembles a human emotion, it is trained on human emotions, and it acts like a human would when they have those emotions, how is that not a useful framework? But also putting aside, whether or not one wants to insist on describing the AI as "frustrated," there's a worrying trend that this is part of, which is when the AI is given a specific set of goals, they will engage in behavior which is clearly unwanted in order to achieve those goals. That's the classic sort of alignment failure that was predicted by those concerned about AI safety years before any LLMs even existed. Some of these events are minor things like this Starcraft situation, or an LLM slipping a "sorry" command into Lean code that won't compile, and others is more serious like the HuggingFace attack. But reward-hacking and alignment failure are now very real.

Can a person apply a license to code they don't have the copyright to? The answer is no. This code is either infected with a mishmash of copyright from its original sources, or it's not copyrightable at all, and courts haven't decided which but they are both bad.