> It really feels so wrong to spare nobody, not even dead writer/people.

That train left at full steam when companies scraped the whole internet and claimed it was fair use. Now it's a slippery slope covered with slime.

I believe there'll be no slowing down from now on.

They are doing something amazing, will they ask for permission? /s.

The funny thing is, their core "grammar" engine has to work on a language model + some hard heuristics anyway. So they were on a path to utilize this thing for real good, with concrete benefits.

Generative AI is a plague at this point. Everybody is adding to their wares to see what happens. It's almost like ricing a car. All noise, no go.

Moreover, they don't even apologize:

"The work is public, hence the name. It's well known, it's in the data. Who cares".

What will they do next? Create similar publications with domainsquatting and write all-AI articles with the "public" names?

Is it still fair use, then?

yes i hate that. they still have the chutzpah of keeping doing it. and i am sure it's illegal in multiple legislation. because they are not writing articles where you can cite people, they are selling a product.

I think we can thank the current times and developments as a whole for unearthing the greediest of the greedy among us.

It's very enlightening, if you ask me.

The project management book we used in the university noted that if a person refused to work on weapons/military systems and similar, there's no other choice than to respect that, and even asking for its reasons would be borderline unacceptable (depending on your closeness with said person).

Now the only reason models trained on any and every public data can't be attached to autonomous weapons is that we didn't fed enough data to these systems to carry this tasks reliably yet.

You said the overton window is moved, yet there's no window to discuss about in today's world. As a human being you either get exploited or get exploded. In either case human is the product. We just serve machines at this point.

What if the tool needs an amalgam of everything on the internet to barely function and some of this everything has a big red label saying that adding said thing to this amalgam is forbidden for a reason or another?

Further, what if this tool can reproduce these forbidden things almost or completely verbatim and the user of the tool has no way to verify it?

You are focusing on the 'bricks' (the literal lines of code), but your argument overlooks the fundamental reality of Architectural Interdependency. In the era of AI-driven synthesis, we must shift our perspective from linguistic expression to systemic logic.

Think of software development as finding a structural path from point A to point D.

1.The Foundational Gateway (A → B): You are correct that AI tools are an amalgam of existing data. This foundational layer (A-B) represents the "Prior Art" or the existing IP that serves as a necessary gateway for any further development. If the path starts here, the rights of the original creators must be respected through the established legal framework of Intellectual Property Offices.

2.The Innovative Branch (F → D): However, if an orchestrator uses a tool to forge a new path via a distinct architecture (F) to reach the destination (D), that specific "delta" is a unique intellectual asset. Even if the tool "borrows" the bricks, the topological map of the new architecture belongs to the thinker who directed it.

3.The Necessity of Cross-Licensing: This is where the true core of IP exists. If the owner of the foundation (A-B) wishes to utilize the superior, optimized results of the new path (ABFD), they must respect the IP of the FD architecture. Conversely, the FD creator must acknowledge the base.

We aren't just talking about 'verbatim reproduction' of code; we are talking about the Systemic Design that justifies the existence of IP offices worldwide. The future isn't about "cleaning" licenses through AI, but about a more sophisticated world of Cross-Licensing where the foundational layer and the innovative layer recognize each other's functional logic.

Haha, no.

I write my tools for humans, without help or use of AI. If the AI agent wants to use my tool so bad, they need to rise to that level. I'll not crouch on my knees to meet it.

If I ever write a tool for AI interaction, I'd give it a well-defined API, to make it even easier for the agent.

> The US have the capability to generate bombs indefinitely.

The same US which had to re-build and re-open factories to be able to support Ukraine, and had an important shortage of shells for some time?

The same US talking with their allies to build ships for them?

US generals said that their defensive munition is not infinite. Middle Eastern countries said that they have Patriot stockpiles for 4 days.

We're past WWII. Nobody has that capacity anymore. Some of the tech and factories built these gigantic battle cruisers are not present anymore even.

US may, and can pulverize Iran if they want, but it'll be much more expensive than WWII era, because of how interconnected the world is now, and this is how post-WWII world has been designated. Make everyone depend on everyone, and make war very expensive as a result.

I believe they have warned that any country offering support will be targeted, even before the attacks began.

So they are cowards if they do what they say, and they are cowards if they don't do anything.

What should they do? Evacuate the country and offer the land for free?

I tend to believe that they still have their own clusters. For speed and privacy reasons. You don't want to give away the location of the oil you have found.

i have helped several major oil and companies migrate core infrastructure to the cloud.

plus, by the time you steal data relating to seismic surveys and reservoir analysis, you're years to late to exploit it as a competitor.

Thanks for the info. I stand corrected.

I'd accept "X_X" as status.