Altern4tiveAcc

> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate

... "We" (a lot of people, not everyone who posts here) don't believe that. Lots of people disagree with immigration control as a concept period.

The existence of that app is an abomination; the fact tax payer money is being allocated to it is tragicomic. Not spending it and just giving it as tax returns to the population would be so much better than kidnapping people over being born in the wrong place.

> someone will collect rent from IP anyways

We should work on fixing that, then.

I agree with your point about big tech companies salivating at opportunities to collect rent. IP is part of the problem.

> You know good and well that what is being discussed is the _use_ of LLMs

Not the person you're replying to, but I've found that some people do argue against LLMs themselves (as in, the tech, not just the usage). Specially in humanities/arts cycles which seem to have a stronger feeling of panic towards LLMs.

Clarifying which one you're talking about can save a lot of typing/talking some times.

> You missed the point entirely.

I didn't miss it, I just don't buy it. Lots of people create and write in their free time, without any financial incentives whatsoever.

I'm okay with writing books for profit, though. But if your business case depends on artificially limiting what users can do with their copies, then your business is fundamentally unethical, whether it's a one-man company or OpenAI. It's not a bad thing for such a business to go under.

I'm more than happy to read from authors writing freedom-respecting works instead, thanks.

Although getting rid of the copyright/IP nonsense for works that already exist is a big win on its own.

IP being used by small firms instead of large corporations does not make it a good thing. It's the same disgusting concept to deny freedom for end users to give control to who "owns" the IP.

IP as a concept needs to die.

> It completely centralizes accesses, censorship, and profits in the hands of a few mega corporations.

Have the biggest models be legally forced to be released in the open for end users, then. Best of both worlds.

Wait a few years, and you'll even be able to run those models in commodity hardware.

Enshittification in order to give returns to shareholders suck. The tech is great and empowering for the commons.

> But if I see listen to some song, and copy it, and release it, I could get sued.

This is what should be fixed in the first place, then. You shouldn't get sued from what you do with your copy of a song.

> Is it fine for the LLMs to rip them off?

Yes. It is good (and IMO should be encouraged) that derivative works can are made, even if it would make you less money.

This article felt like a strong argument against Nix rather than in favor of it. The complexity it brings is just not worth the gains for the majority of people that I know. No, most people won't be happy that Nix breaks dynamic linking.

Docker with a Debian Stable base will solve the problems listed for most users, with 1% of the time investment. The author used Nix for 8 years, and I'm not surprised it looks a bit simpler to them now.

How is the shorter deadline better for the worker? Ultimately, that devolves to a race to the bottom with people choosing between overworking or being laid off. Surely AWS is profitable enough by now, that all those employees could get their work hours reduced, receive a raise, and have both the organization and the product keep existing just fine.

> we should still discuss whether putting these technologies out, and using them, is a good move - particularly if we care about rewarding creators and supporting the podcasting industry

Note that a lot of people believe that it is not only a good move, but the actually ethical one. I fail to see how the ads would benefit the users directly, and I will go out of my way to not support advertising. So far I've installed tools like uBlock Origin and Sponsor Block for tens of friends/acquaintances now, and I firmly believe they are getting a better experience.

Racket and similar languages never clicked with me. The syntax barrier feels very high. I started programming at a young age, and I failed my Functional Programming class at college 3 times. Eventually, I gave up on getting a degree.

Lots of respect to people who not only get it, but build complex programs with Racket, Common Lisp, Haskell and similar languages.