There are sites I like and do not block ads because I want them to be around, and in the end they either need to paywall or run ads to stay in business.
But the company whose ad it is has already paid to be shown on the site, hasn't it? Why should they care whether I choose to block ads via my browser? I'm never going to click on any as anyway.
If an LLM regurgitates your code verbatim (or really close so it could reasonably be considered a derivative work) and it's uncredited, then it's copyright infringement and also plagiarism.
Companies have published their online rules and data on content moderation. Those that are interested in participating in the project voluntarily hand over documents on policies, tools and product features.
Though I admit that doesn't make sense either. If they already published their stuff, why do they have to hand it over? Also, just because they have policies and procedures does't mean they either actually follow them or follow them in a timely manner.
Not everybody needs to know how to program, and those people who were being forced into taking a CS class were likely never going to be all that good at it.
Not everybody needs to know how to do either chemistry or physics either and yet we still require chemistry and physics classes.
Whereas Google says their rankings aren't affected by payments (other than their promoted link) they are awash in advertising cash.
Maybe. Presumably, Amazon also is awash in cash, but that didn't stop them from showing ads while you pause a show on Amazon Prime. Companies just can't help themselves. They shove ads into every possible corner.
Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming