johneth

Or Europe dumps its considerable U.S. debt holdings, killing the U.S. economy.

I wonder if any of these people are proud of the work they do.

> I imagine many of their privately held beliefs are just as horrible but they’re not dumb enough to say them publicly.

Why would you support a company run by someone stupid enough to say their polarising beliefs publicly? It doesn't inspire confidence in their judgment. Even if you personally agree with their polarising beliefs, you have to question their decision making process in why they chose to deliberately make them public, damaging the company. If they're stupid like that, maybe they've made stupid decisions with their products (which in Elon's case, yes, he has, and not just at Tesla).

It makes sexual images of real people without their consent. That's what's breaking the law.

It's nonconsensual generation of sexual content of real people that is breaking the law. And things like CSAM generation which is obviously illegal.

> It feels a bit like foreign morals are being forced upon us.

Welcome to the rest of the world, where US morals have been forced upon us for decades. You should probably get used to it.

When you start a subscription, you're agreeing to pay X amount every Y period of time; you're not starting a new agreement every single Y period of time.

I'm sure people who can afford to run virtual desktops in the cloud can also afford a phone/laptop/desktop to access sites that block those virtual desktops in the cloud.

I think, for many, the web should be free for humans.

When scraping was mainly used to build things like search indexes which are ultimately mutually beneficial to both the website owner and the search engine, and the scrapers were not abusive, nobody really had a problem.

But for generative AI training and access, with scrapers that DDoS everything in sight, and which ultimately cause visits to the websites to fall significantly and merely return a mangled copy of its content back to the user, scraping is a bad thing. It also doesn't help that the generative AI companies haven't paid most people for their training data.

> Hulu and Disney Plus have taken centuries in this endeavor.

Only in the US. Everywhere else Hulu has always been integrated into Disney+).

This is where a quick "kindly fuck off" response would save a lot of time for everyone involved.

Better if nobody buys it.

> That is standard practice.

It's standard practice for commercially-sponsored software, and it doesn't necessarily fit volunteer maintained software. You can't have the same expectations.

I didn't say it was. I understand that profit = revenue - cost.

I said they're profiting from other people's hard work, a separate concept.

If you boil it down to the AI companies are making money (subscriptions, etc.) based on content they did not pay to produce, then they are profiting from someone else's hard work.

He either doesn't know who he is, in which case why is he pardoning him, or he does know who he is, in which case he's brazenly lying.

Or he's so dementia ridden that he did know who he was, but no longer, in which case why is he in office?

NATS is also half-owned by the UK government + they have a golden share.

Why build a synthetic data Wikipedia when Wikipedia exists? Except to push some political point like Grokipedia seems to be for.

It's good that all of those things are definitely not prone to massive bubbles.

It's an interesting idea, but how would you actually calculate that value? It seems to border on impossible.

Luckily Larry Ellison is 81, so he's got a limited window in which to do too much damage.

It's not worth anyone's time to meticulously fact check known (and I'm being kind here) 'exaggerator' Sam Altman, because by the time you're done, he's already spread 10 more 'exaggerations'.

Just FYI: I got a modal in Chrome asking "Did you mean opensource.google? Attackers sometimes mimic sites by making hard-to-see changes to the web address."

I'm sure there's nothing you can do about it, but thought you might want to know.

> It's discriminatory against robots

That's the entire point.

Well done on pointing out exactly what everyone here is saying in the most arrogant way possible. Also, well done on linking to your own comment where people explain this to you.

The problem is that there is no way to "block me if you don't want me". That's the entire issue. The methods these scrapers use mean it's nigh on impossible to block them.

> It’s difficult to verify that because Yoti is privately held and its backers are secret.

You can see some of these things on Companies House. This is Yoti Holding Ltd., but you'd have to look at its subsidiaries, too:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...

(I'm not defending Yoti/similar, just mentioning in case you weren't aware of CH)

Also on the CMA's blog: https://competitionandmarkets.blog.gov.uk/2025/07/23/cma-pro...

16-year-olds do pay into the system. Some may have jobs or apprenticeships that pay them, for which they're directly taxed. Some may have started their own business, which will pay tax. All will pay VAT when they buy products and services.

> Do you genuinely think it’s worse that someone makes a decision, whether good or bad, after consulting with GPT versus making it in solitude?

Depending on the decision yes. An LLM might confidently hallucinate incorrect information and misinform, which is worse than simply not knowing.

The data it collects is used by AI companies, though.

Another selfish reason: at some point we'll all have diminished eyesight; make things accessible for future you.