Absolutely. It is like Windows vs Linux, Bambu vs Creality. Whatever works for you.

However, there was a 3rd party attempt on making additional functionality for the printers, Bambu demanded to stop this. Effectively, they reduced your options with your printer. It may or may not be important. But I would take it as a troubling sign. What can they do next? Especially, that there was some bad publicity a year or two ago, already.

This is the perfect way to teach people to start ignoring these laws. Good or bad, once you start ignoring them you ignore them all. You just do what you feel like doing.

Have you heard about HPC? Compute clusters? Job schedulers? These have thousands of accounts accessible via SSH logins. FYI.

I can agree with this. As we learn a tool we can learn how to make it better and safer. And we can also force the manufacturers to implement these measures by finding them negligent if they have not and fining them. Yes, this is how it works.

You could, but it is not a fool proof solution and it usually gets in the way and makes your tool inferior. Think about guns with finger print scanners. Has been tried but it is not there because it is not working good enough. You can issue warnings as much as you want but what are you going to achieve? Bad guy already knows that he is a bad guy, a good guy does not plan anythings bad, any warning will be a false positive. Tools are tools, they have to be efficient on what they do. The responsibility for the actions of he user is on the user, not on the tool.

I am not sure I am following you. Tools do not "think", tools do not do anything by themselves. Chatbot did not wake up a person and suggested that the person should attack some people. The person planned that, the tool helped the person to plan. This is what tools do.

If the tool does not have an intent, it cannot discourage anything. Discouraging is an intent... intent to prevent violence, for example. However, it is a tool, it is not a person, it does not really have an intent. The whole point of demanding pacifying behavior from a tool is bogus.

I thought it is 3D printers who do this, but printing weapon parts.

This is a tool that talks. This is how this tool works. Are you trying to imply that the chatbot has some intent and made the person to do the bad thing to gain some benefit? This would definitely change things.

If you think about it, it was the computer that allowed that person to interact with the chatbot...

To be fair, if this "stupid" thing helps people to do actual things to happen, how is it "bad and not working"? You can do not like it as much as you want but it can program and write poetry better than 90% of "real human population". If it is not impressive and and disruptive technology, I do not know what is.

Really, if you do not understand something, it does not mean it is bad, it means you do not understand it.

Regarding this specific case, even a hammer can be used to kill a person, it does not mean that the person who designed or made the hammer is a bad guy. The decision to attack people was on that person, let us stop blaming tools and start holding the bad guys accountable. So simple.

This does not sound like a very good alternative. Governments have agendas and this will only give more control over people to them.

I think that putting all the eggs in on basket is not a good strategy, even if it is Mozilla.

So, you are implying that all the conversations are being monitored? Is this even legal?

What about phone companies? If somebody plots a murder or a terrorist act over a phone landline, or a mobile phone network, is the company liable?

Really, this question is absurd.

They will call you an asshole for doing and saying what you think is right. Who is the biggest bigot here, I wonder. And ... they will call you a bigot too... Damn.