HeralFacker

No, ending proprietary software does not end copyright. Even after reading your arguments, I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

You argued quite the opposite, in fact, by claiming copyright (and not license terms) ensures open source software.

It is entirely possible to ban proprietary software in cases of human rights and public interest (e.g., open source medical firmware, to use the OP case) while maintaining copyright law even as it exists now.

Yes, it's called functional programming and it's been around for a while

Where is the transparency statement about whether or not this is farming flight data for one of the for-profit rocket companies?

Exactly. Proprietary software and software patents need to end. In the case of medical devices, such restrictions violate the ADA by blocking access to reasonable accomodations.

Blackhole Bytedance's ASNs. Cobalt is an end-user tool, so there's not much legitimacy to a cloud service accessing it.

I wonder if the inherent public domain nature of genAI output will lead to licensing issues and forced code releases in the future.

Someone would have to prove slop code was used; but the same copyright issues with slop art apply, with the added complication of obscured licensing terms.

Where I work, genAI tools are banned because we do contracts that involve transfer of ownership with disclosure of third-party source. The lawyers state that, genAI's removal of attribution, it runs afoul of the disclosure requirement. It's a fireable offense to even have the tools installed on work computers/devices.

I've had WhatsApp for years and while it does ask for contacts, it works just fine if you deny that permission.

They didn't automate it away, they did the same old practice of hiding it in sweatshops.

Converting to a for-profit changes the tax status of donations. It also voids plausibility for Fair Use exemptions.

I can see large copyright holders lining up with takedowns demanding they revise their originating datasets since there will now be a clear-cut commercial use without license.

None of that is external verification. You're using the generating tool to do the verification, leaving the door open for opaque errors.

What external checks are included to verify the chatbot output?

Facial recognition systems are generally utterly broken. Other examples of this:

- user-presence detection systems that can't see you if you have dark skin (Apple FaceID has/had this problem)

- the high rate of false positives with the facial recognition systems police use at protests

- driver drowsiness detection that can't tell the difference between a sleepy driver and someone with a narrow eye shape

Do you have a link to a copy of the video with captions? YouTube autogen doesn't cut it unfortunately. Or perhaps a written-form version (slide deck + transcript)?

What's in the 8% not covered by testing?