And now we are back on topic!

Like your examples show, some videos of crime are in fact illegal in some places. It is however the videos themselves that are illegal, for any reason, not due to the mere fact that they depict crime.

The Christchurch shooting is a good example, the video had to be banned on its own, showing how such videos are not normally illegal. It had to be banned specifically.

I don’t think that was the point of the comment you replied to.

The point is that even if it was a real video, it’s not illegal. Just like a video of 9/11 is not a terrorist attack nor is it illegal, it’s just a video of one.

I don’t either but I often use the bathroom after coming back home from outside, and the phone is still in my pocket at least then.

You take it out of your pants pocket before entering the bathroom?

He said in another comment nothing actually went wrong. He’s complaining it got updated and so it could have corrupted it. But it didn’t. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I hate Windows as much as anyone here but this is outrage over nothing. Most Linux installs also automatically update your bios.

Lol you are so argumentative that this is how you respond to someone agreeing with you? Forcibly putting me into the “opposing camp” against my will. All right then, live your delusion while we fight AI without you.

That’s the communication problem in these conversations. Whether it’s a useful tool and whether it’s an ethical tool are two different questions. People come in and attack the developers for generating slop, and they respond that they are experienced developers who can use the tool properly to increase the security of the code or whatever. And the conversation here is about that.

And then someone like you comes in talking about ethics, which is what we should be talking about, but we are talking past each other.

The truth is most commenters are not technically skilled to evaluate or critique their decisions.

I don’t need to be skilled to evaluate or critique their decisions.

You are both correct. But the former is about the engineering, the latter is about ethics. You do need to technically skilled to evaluate whether AI is a useful tool for Graphene. You don’t need to in order to critique it on ethical grounds. These are completely different topics that have nothing to do with each other.

Ok, so shareholders shouldn’t be liable after all is what you are saying, only people having a say.

Can you link these reports? Not that I don’t believe it, but I see many comments claiming this and never including any evidence.

Sounds sensible to be honest. If you can rearrange icons on the desktop, and then you open the desktop folder, surely they should be arranged the same way unless chosen otherwise.

“AI makes it easier to be lazy and produce buggy software faster” is your claim, which I agree with. But I have to note that “thus AI can’t be used to produce high quality software” is not something that follows from that.

Because you buy it. It being a limited license of course, not a game.

It’s a fair question. I think out of the two proposed rules: enforce no AI generated code, and enforce human reviews, enforcing human reviews is actually more feasible, and in fact most companies already do that. Pull requests need human reviewers to approve them.

It’s harder to enforce no AI generated code. A developer can always, at the very least, Google a problem they are having on their phone and retype the code from the AI answer into their work computer.

How do you enforce code is not AI generated? I don’t see how one is more easily enforceable than the other.

I hope you mean when he bought it, not when he announced it. He announces a lot of things all the time which never happen.

Imagine

FreeCAD had improved massively since the recent 1.0 release, unlike GIMP…

This is always interesting to hear because as someone who went school in a non English speaking country, GIMP was obviously never an issue. In most of the world the name isn’t an issue.

I only learned about that alternative meaning years later.

They can rely on an open source project called Proton.

They didn’t though, despite countless articles claiming so. The only change was moving it from the foreword of their Code of Conduct to the closing statement. Sure, you can argue all day if the foreword or closing statement is “more impactful”, but it was never removed.

You can see it yourself right here: https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of-conduct/default.aspx

To be clear, Google is an evil company who never abided by that slogan. But it’s just plain untrue that they removed it.