LOL you have "use cases".

As to what I'd prefer, neither of these. I'd prefer AI developed to realize its potential rather than be corrupted and destroy civilization. This entire conversation is even relevant to that.

"public good" is a handy catchphrase useful for justifying when billionaires steal. Wasn't DOGE for the "public good"?

"Stallman's position was that the source code to software should be free for everyone to use, learn from, and improve."
That was RMS's public-facing claim. In reality, his position was that source code should be free for HIM to use. As a student, he got upset that he couldn't have source code to a driver he wanted. Regarding software projects he was involved in, RMS loved being a dictator, do it his way or get lost.

"Software encapsulates knowledge, he argued, and no one should lock something so fundamental away."
All sorts of work "encapsulate knowledge", it is the work that is maintained as property, not the knowledge. More Stallman garbage. Also, sounds a whole lot like communism, interesting how open source advocates like to deny that.

"To hide software inside a company was to hide knowledge itself."
A plain lie, but a company's internally generated knowledge is their choice to share.

"What I missed was that software was not just a commercial asset; it was a body of knowledge, and bodies of knowledge grow stronger when they are shared. "
So what? Designing and building cars not only produces cars, but it produces knowledge of how to design and build cars. Yet literally NO ONE argues that this generated knowledge should be public property, or worse, property governed by a Stallman license.

""AI is software, and AI is increasingly closed. The frontier models — the most advanced, cutting-edge AI systems — are closed completely."
Here he exposed his limited understanding of AI. AI is software, deterministic software like every other application ever, that is true. But AI is more than software, it is software that is applied to enormous amounts of data. The portion of AI that is software is not "increasingly closed", however the product of that software, the models and subsequent applications of those models, sometimes is. This guy doesn't understand that a model is more than software, the bulk of the product is training. Training IS NOT software, it is a colossal amount of actual work, your work he wants for free.

"But open source AI does not have to match their scale to be useful."
Nothing prevents open source from training open source models. His position is that corporations should be compelled to "open source" the product of their work. In what industry has there ever been an argument for that other than the "Stallman" industry? The problem here is not the existence of OS models, it's that this guy want YOUR work for free, just like RMS does.

"...that is precisely the kind of public good worth paying for."
The irony of a billionaire who advocates getting other people's work for free using this language. The whole point of open source is not "paying for".

"The government, the private sector, and nonprofits should invest heavily in free and open source AI — the way they once invested in open software: public compute grants for open research, corporate and philanthropic support for universities and nonprofits doing the work, and a simple rule that AI built with public money is open by default."
But the entire lead-in was NOT about this, it was about industry producing closed models. The "private sector" invested in OS because they had a vested interest, what would that interest be with AI? And we do have "nonprofits" investing heavily in AI, how is that working out? An argument can be made that it is in the public interest to socialize AI, and I agree with it. but that runs against the capitalist nature of modern societies, the very foundation of open source, AND against the very system that has made this guy a billionaire.

Now, regarding this "simple rule", why is that NOT the rule for everything publicly funded? Perhaps because it would preclude guys like this getting rich? Sorry, the hypocrisy is off the charts.

"The behavior of these people strikes me more and more as cult-member like."

A most important insight. AI is a cult with billionaire sociopaths as its leaders. The internet has enabled propaganda at a scale considered impossible previously and we are seeing the terrible results.

"...and my shell escaped it tried to execute it. "

You do realize that's the problem, right? AI has access to your command line to autonomously execute commands. No no no.

"LLMs are a very handy tool if used right."

You're not going to acknowledge that the problem is you, you enabled an LLM to do destructive things and then complain when there is destruction. You have the mindset that the LLM should have access to nuclear codes but not use them. "Honest mistake" only means that the LLM publishers didn't maliciously intend for the LLM to start a nuclear holocaust, you're at fault for providing the codes.

'Thibault Sottiaux, wrote on X that internal investigations have revealed that these deletion incidents are more likely to happen when "full access mode is enabled, and Codex is run without sandboxing protections, including without auto review being enabled."'

So "more likely to happen" when the tool is NOT prevented from doing it? No shit. In other words, if you use the tool then you're to blame for any catastrophe that results.

It's not AI, but the empowering of AI, that's the problem. Hannibal Lector only eats people when he is given access to people.

Fact-free speculation always makes for the best opinions.

Or if all cars were bicycles instead. Could happen if billionaires get their way.

Sounds like complete bullshit. Don't know, have no interest in reading past the first few ignorant words.

Dual clutch manuals are better in every way than conventional manuals, so even if there was a case where manual had an advantage an old-fashioned manual still loses out. That is, except for the fun factor for some drivers. Racing hasn't used conventional manuals in decades.

"the left" certainly does "sound like pigeonholing" though. American politics no longer has anything to do with left, right or center. Saying otherwise is pigeonholing.

Also, the claim is not correct. Objectivity is not monopolized by "the left", nor critical thinking, nor naivety. Conservatives USED to be critical thinkers and centrists are principally defined by that. While conservatism is influenced by selfishness, liberalism is idealist. Both alignments are subject to bias.

In fact, the entire bogus conclusion "sounds like pigeonholing".

"Fact consumers such as you are a small sample of voters, like it or not."

This is such a partisan take, presented as though it is not. The entire Republican strategy is to drive contempt and hatred to cause disengagement, "like it or not". Your point is the same as Scalia's point was when Bush stole the election in 2000, "Get over it". Republicans have won, get over it, right? Fact consumers are NOT a "small sample", they are a targeted group.

"On the flip side, there are ALSO powerful groups who have a clear interest in controlling narratives."

Which is why there used to be checks on influence in media and why Republicans since Reagan have been destroying those checks. The creation of Fox News, and Rush before it, was deliberate, as is this furthering of that agenda.

"So, any news source that makes a sincere effort at being unbiased will be distrusted by viewers at least half the time."

False. You are assuming distrust is inherent but it is not and you have made no case for it. People used to trust the news because the news was trustworthy.

"... and will be fighting a losing battle against wealthy special interest groups. With cards stacked against them like that, it is no surprise that there aren't very many."

Right, the very reason news is untrustworthy.

Your curiosity may get you deported.

"Which is to say, communists advocate for communism, whatever buzzword they call it this week..."

Or whatever buzzword you call it this week. Communism is an economic system, not a set of "democratic choices". Trump thanks you for your contribution, though.