I'm disappointed that no one is shooting them. That would be the American way!

I'm well aware. I was writing software before the IBM PC existed, and before the Apple Lisa hit the market. I didn't mention Tron and the Matrix because I thought they were both released at the same time. I can't imagine why you thought that, even if I didn't already know that information, it would in any way be pertinent.

Thanks for explaining the "joke" ... Now I see why it definitely wasn't funny.

I won't figure it out because the premise of Tron is stupid. I'd sooner watch the Matrix all the way through than Tron and I don't have that much lack of taste. I prefer good movies where off the chart level of suspension of disbelief aren't required.

If you are taking about the shitty remake then you are correct. It doesn't matter though, because protocols can't kill. That's not how protocols work.

MCP and TCP/IP are protocols, and Tron and Kill Bill. Protocols don't want to kill movies. Asking if a protocol wants to kill a movie makes zero sense, which was the point of my initial reply to the GP. The second sentence in my reply to you was rhetorical. It is self evident based on the fact that you couldn't follow the logic.

And there is no T R O or N in MCP. Are you some kind of idiot?

That's like asking if TCP/IP wants to Kill Bill.

"Dunning Kruger the Internet meme is discredited nonsense."

A single study doesn't discredit it. Confirmation bias much?

"Meta glasses also have capability of recording audio and your statement "News flash ... like it or not, in a public place you have consented to, and almost certainly are, being recorded." does not stipulate a specific modality."

This makes it clear that you have no idea what prior restraint means. You consent to video recording, and in most states you also consent to audio recording. Regardless of which state you are in recording audio is not banned because that would be prior restraint. Under United States constitutional law, a blanket ban on recording devices in public would violate the First Amendment, which protects the right to gather information and record matters of public interest.

"In the United States, you do have some expectation of privacy - even in public - and it's important to stand up and protect that right.""

That's right. You have the right to not have your audio recorded without your consent. The right you *don't* have is to ban recording devices in public. It is *more* important that the people who have devices stick up for *their* right to have such devices, and that violation of Freedom of Speech (prior restraint) is not allowed.

"Further my statements were concerning the use of data."

Clearly you don't understand that audio and video recordings are data. Otherwise I have no idea why you would even think that was anything other than a phenomenally stupid thing to write.

Google refuses all of that. Basically all of the tech companies do.

Fron the GP:

"Security researchers are actually smart, who knew? So they know where to allocate their time to find the most exploitable bugs."

You can't just read my post out of context and understand the wording, which I admit would have been better written as "Claiming that they know where to pay attention to where others looked and and ignore other areas where people looked." If you read this entire thread that you jumped into the middle of you will clearly see that rsilvergun is an idiot (SURPRISE!!!) and that I was specifically pointing out that he was being ludicrous claiming that there are areas of the kernel where bugs don't matter. As you are probably aware the kernel maintainers had a long standing practice of not categorizing bugs specifically as security bugs because all bugs are important per Linus. This changed early this year (May IIRC) because AI has gotten *much* better, making rsilverguns claims even more ludicrous. Maybe you will find that last part interesting if you were not already aware.

North Philly is a pussy neighborhood you pussy.

No way Google would do that. The potential liability for making mistakes would be enough to make them run screaming all by itself, even assuming there's no risk if the information is accurate -- which is at least not clear and probably not true for many of the things you listed.

Google is leery of even having such information, and definitely isn't going to be giving it out to anyone who doesn't show up with a subpoena or a warrant.

Slippery slope fallacy. Given that this is strictly opt-in, for children only, under parental control, there's absolutely no reason to think that any of the rest of that is soon to follow.

I find it interesting that their intention is clearly based on concerns about IP ownership, unrelated to quality. They're not banning "AI slop", they're banning code with unclear ownership. They clearly want to avoid a situation where they take a code contribution which the AI model owner might claim to own, or which owners of the AI's training material might claim to own. If those claims were upheld, it would mean the contributor didn't own the copyright and therefore couldn't license it under the relevant open source license.

I think this will ultimately prove to be needless caution. I think courts will end up deciding that AI-generated code is no different than code generated by any other sort of code generation tool, and that the copyright is held by the person using and directing the tool. But it's definitely not impossible that things will go a different way.