I'm assuming the FBI is investigating in all of those cases and, if there is a further threat, will close down those companies / arrest their management?

Or is this a case of "hey look, our bots are doing illegal things but we're exempt from the law"?

> some quality "literature", of some form

In my opinion, we will continue to need fully educated people who read books and peer-reviewed articles. We need literature, not "'literature', of some form."

Still, AI is a new form of a library. Or knowledge presentation. With a lot of usefulness for learning.

Sure, who know things do not need to consult talky chatbots.

But totaly dismising '"literature", of some form' is not an opion. It already works like simple "consulting manual".

Of course as long as texts used for LLMs training start to be outdated and noone will bother to update models.

And we always want as much as possible educated peoples but not always can afford everyone higher material expe^W^W^W^Wdemands.

I only use web chat with copy&paste and file upload option. Anything else I don't trust, especially since the people who create AI harnesses and apps use AI to develop them.

> It’s also pretty obvious that saying “parent should take responsibility” is also not working. Just observe the world around you to know it’s a non starter.

That's like saying "take a look at owners of fast sport cars, it's obvious this is not working and they have too many accidents." If you want to patronize other parents and think the government should be more responsible and parents less responsible, please state that honestly. Don't make up alleged "facts" to make a point.

Otherwise, I'll just say "it's obvious you're wrong, just observe the world around you and you know age verification is a non starter."

The problem with native apps are the app stores and their requirements. For true cross-platform, you need to develop for 5 platforms (macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android), each with their own technology, favored programming language and ecosystem, deployment, certificates, regulations, requirements, guidelines, arbitrary app review policies, categories, etc. I'm doing that currently and it's madness.

IMHO, it would be best if developers all over the world boycotted proprietary platforms entirely. (Of course, this is never going to happen, I'm just saying.)

> it would be best if developers all over the world boycotted proprietary platforms entirely.

Note that Linux and Android, from your list, are open source.

> For true cross-platform, you need to develop for 5 platforms

I would argue that anyway, you should develop for multiple "kinds of devices". Writing the same code for a desktop computer and a smartphone is fundamentally a mistake: I don't want to slide big buttons with my mouse.

So first, you need to design the UI multiple times: for desktop, for smartphones, and for tablets. If you want a smart watch, you need another design for it. Web apps don't solve that better.

Second, if you can write a webapp that works everywhere, then you can write a native app that works everywhere. I don't see how that would be different. The problem is generally that if you run the exact same code everywhere, then it's not a good experience.

Android is closed-source but with some open-source components, for only some of which they'll actually follow the license and give you the source code.

AOSP means "Android Open Source Project". You can get the sources of Android, modify them, and build the whole OS. The Android SDK is open source as well.

GrapheneOS is based on Android precisely because Android is open source. They couldn't do that with iOS, or Windows, or any proprietary OS. Same for LineageOS.

Honestly it seems like you don't really know what you are talking about here?

AOSP isn't Android. Nor is the Android SDK.

Also you can totally fork iOS, in binary form, on the dark web, and run it somewhere that isn't an iPhone.

Ok teach me. What is Android?

Not OP but are you saying the google's "Android" OS, which comes installed in smartphones that aren't called iphone, is open source? because it is not. There is an open source version of it which is not the one you have access when you buy a phone.

No. The "OS" part of "Android" is AOSP, period.

What runs in your phone is AOSP, with some firmware blobs (many of which are proprietary), with some system apps that may be proprietary (like Play Services and Play Store or whatever the OEM adds). If you need to convince yourself, try to build AOSP and run it.

The OP is just trying to derail the discussion. Would you say that Linux is not open source because the Linux you run on your computer most likely has to run some proprietary blobs? Or that Linux is not an OS because Linux is a kernel? What would it bring to the question of "are there open source OSes out there?", really?

I'd say SteamOS is not open source IF SteamOS was not open source (but it is). The Android that google ships to phones isn't open source the same way the Google Chrome browser isn't open source either. To the license level. This is quite obvious, not sure if you don't understand or simple don't agree (and prefer to be wrong).

Do you even know where the discussion comes from? After enumerating "macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android", it was said:

> it would be best if developers all over the world boycotted proprietary platforms entirely.

I noted that Linux and Android are open source.

To which I got the answer:

> Android is closed-source but with some open-source components, for only some of which they'll actually follow the license and give you the source code.

Now please explain me how "they only follow the licence and give you the source code for some open-source components of Android" is obvious, and how I choose to be wrong when I say that the full goddamn OS is open source, not because Google follows the licence (because they don't have to, they own the codebase) but because Google chooses to publish it. There are many reasons for that and I hate Google as much as the next person, but the fact remains that the Android OS is open source.

So back to the original point where "developers should boycott proprietary platforms", I don't think that Linux and Android should be boycotted. Developers should use and support open source Android systems like GrapheneOS and LineageOS (which they generally have no idea about) instead of boycotting them.

Android is a good proprietary platform so locked that in the near future it'll be impossible to "sideload" apps (install apps without Google first allow it). Google Android isn't open source.

It can be open source and locked.

Android is an open source OS: you can take the sources, compile them, run them on your phone and you will have a fully functional OS.

Because it is open source does not mean that nobody can make a proprietary product out of it.

I dare you to buy a random Android phone and try to get the source code for the GPU driver that will compile and match the functionality of what's installed on the device.

This is not what open source means.

It's exactly what open source mean.

I don't know if you are trying to defend that "Android is not an open source OS" or if you are trying to play on words like the other poster?

The best open source mobile OS you can get nowadays is based on AOSP, where the A means "Android". Sure, there are people who make proprietary products out of that. But it doesn't mean that Android is not an open source OS. The OS part, again, is open source. Even the Android SDK is open source.

AOSP is not Android, or do you believe that GitHub is Git because the Git stands for Git? Or that Windows Registry Cleanup Assistant is Windows?

The "A" in "AOSP" stands for "Android". Your examples are preposterous.

It's closer to the difference between "Linux" and "GNU/Linux", which is often used by trolls like you to derail discussions. And more often than not, those who derail the discussions by saying "GNU/Linux" don't actually understand that there are mainstream Linux distributions that don't run a GNU userland, and that "GNU/Linux" is actually incorrect for whatever they are trying to say.

I can see that you probably met many people that tried to explain to you what GNU/Linux means and that Linux isn't an OS. All their effort trying to educate you was wasted.

Just don't travel to the US.

This is an increasingly popular solution. Foreign tourism has crashed.

I love the geography of the US, and it has some truly stunning places to visit.

But they're not so stunning that I need to risk my freedom - risk my freedom - to visit them in person.

I do not sell tourism services. I sell software. If there is less foreign tourism in the US, nice places will be less crowded. So, what are my incentives to ask my government to ease foreign entry to my country?

Tourism pays taxes for the government services you receive and specifically pays for upkeep of and infrastructure around attractions that you may find useful yourself.

I don't agree with the premise that the US makes entry for normal tourists particularly onerous though.

This person is a US citizen. What happens if he just said nothing (beyond identifying and answering basic questions) and refused to cooperate? How long could they hold him? As a citizen they have to allow him to enter eventually.

According to the ACLU I think this person would have been better off saying little and not wiping their phone.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...

And they would have taken his phone, pulled it apart and cloned the memory to get the data. And in a month or three, returned his phone to him in some condition which may or may not include "working".

Sounds like a better outcome to me.

Plus, unless GrapheneOS gets encryption wrong (which I doubt), cloning the memory to get the data isn't really a thing.

This. If any country won't treat you like a guest, avoid travelling to it.

If it's your own, that's harder to do – time to fight and change the system before it gets worse and will swallow you whole.

I live in the U.S. (as, I think, does the person who is the subject of this article).

Maybe change your location then :P

Turns out immigration in other countries isn't a cakewalk either.

Yeah that is true, sadly... I was a little too provocative without acknowledging the complexity behind it.

The US have things like exit taxes etc which make it a pain to leave.

It annoys me that recently people seem to propagate the wrong use of em dashes. There is no space—an em dash is practically never typeset with spacing. You use an en dash in European typesetting – they have spaces, which your typesetting system hopefully adjusts to sane values. They're not like the spaces between words.

At least, that's how I learned it. Everyone seems to disagree and write em dashes with spaces nowadays.

Agreed that it (used to be) less common. AP style (like the article mentioned) uses spaced em dashes, and I think that style of spaced em dashes are more common in writing today because that's what Claude (particularly Sonnet) likes to use (based on some half-baked investigation I did a bit ago [^1]). OpenAI models generally uses the American-style unspaced em dashes, which is why that particular style looks LLM-y to people now.

edit: Another comment recommended https://www.pbjstories.com/blog/spaces-around-em-dash which does an awesome job of diving into dash usage by style guide

[^1]: https://will-keleher.com/posts/your-dashes-suggest-which-mod...

He could end this illegal war of aggression any day, just like Putin can end his war against Ukraine any day. There is nothing to discuss here.

Gemini Pro has become so bad for my purposes -- copy & paste Go programming and code analysis with the web GUI -- that I'll take any model with equivalent capabilities at the same price or lower. I don't care where it comes from, I'm not dealing with state secrets and, frankly speaking, US corporations have an abysmal track record regarding safety and surveillance.

Question about this from a EU citizen who doesn't know the details of how the EU works (who does?): Are there legal means to challenge this vote based on the procedure that was taking place?