That's really not what's going on here.

What's going on is exactly what they're saying. OpenAI didn't realize their AI hacked HuggingFace until HuggingFace told them. That sparked a broad investigation in both Anthropic and OpanAI, scouring their logs to see if there were other cases, and they're finding a lot of them, and doing the responsible thing by disclosing.

Both companies are really worried.

Having an out-of-control AI is an anti-selling point, not a selling point.

I am an American, have been for all of my 57 years. I'm actually a certified pistol, rifle and shotgun instructor, a certified range safety officer, and a concealed carry instructor. And while I wouldn't recommend it, it's not at all hard to get away with shooting outside of one of those situations.

Also, it was a joke.

That idiom has another meaning.

... your site. But I'm tired of being yelled at for turning on enhanced tracking protection. Not blocking adds. I see Retool in my sleep by now. Just asking "Please don't track me."

Like completion of the I-5 construction project through Seattle? No one will ever believe something that outlandish.

The traffic control ones installed at major intersections, for example. They have sufficient resolution for ALPR. They caught a guy using a home brew Opticom transmitter by checking the recorded video around the logged signal preemptions and getting his plate off the picture.

Originaly, it was supposed to be a social network for making professional contacts. A noble endeavour, to be sure. But the forces of DEI and social credit just couldn't allow that to stand. It now has added the moderation features of the echo chamber type network. I.e., if you don't conform, you're outta here.

The A.I. slop arises from attempts by users to prepare reasonably sounding commentary without getting trapped in one of the many snares of "social acceptability". A.I. would seem to be pretty good at this, seeing it's in-built tendencies to maintain social engagement. Even if that just means re-hashing the bullshit that the influencer class loves to hear. Which is probably why it is disliked by them. The self-proclaimed social leaders don't want to be side tracked engaging with 'bots while real humans look for jobs.

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

You didn't read my post... you just made up what you wanted to hear and answered that. It's not an argument against choice... it's a prediction that it will inevitably fail. People don't want to take a 23 hour flight. There is simply a limit to endurance there. Hell, here in the UK you've got loads of people who refuse to fly more than 2 hours. There's just not enough people willing to suffer that much to make this program commercially viable.. that means they'll have custom planes that are unprofitable on any route... which means QANTAS will have it's hands out yet again for government money (after doing all they can to kill competition in the Australian domestic market). If anything, you're arguing against choice as we'll have to force people to take flights they don't want to take in order for this not to fail. First to fall will be the PER-LHR flights as you're flying from nowhere to somewhere (Perth to London if you're too lazy to google an IATA code), the only reason you'd take this flight is if you're going from Perth on to another city. Perth is literally on the arse end of nowhere.

they may not have the right... but a somnambulant population will let it happen, the "dont tread on me" types will happily let the "right" government walk all over them and worse, many will even attack those that resist.

I mean just a few articles down there's one describing how the FCC is being used to censor media... where are the "I need mah gurns to protect me from the gubbermint" types now... now is your time to shine... instead you're making excuses because you like who it's currently targetting and are too thick and short sighted to see how it will be turned against you next.

Turns out as long as you let them do the odd school shooting every few weeks, they're quite happy with an oppressive government.

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

... stick to sinking battleships.

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.