4 ms·
If that's how they think they'll do the least harm, why not? It's their tech, they can put whatever license they want on it. Whether it achieves anything is ano
by chpatrick 3y ago
If that's how they think they'll do the least harm, why not? It's their tech, they can put whatever license they want on it. Whether it achieves anything is another question.
- holmesworcester 3y agoWell, the EFF argument is that the deeper you go in the stack, the more you find chokepoints that, if fully used in this way to express preferencs about content, would harm or end the general-purpose nature of the Internet, or computing, and that the cost of doing this would outweigh the benefits. You probably agree that a monopoly ISP or near-monopoly backbone provider censoring arbitrarily would be a problem, even though it's their tech. Or if not you would probably agree that the government doing it would be a problem. And then it's easy to see that it's just as much a problem when monopolies do it when you remember that the government has the power to make or unmake monopolies according to how compliant they are with the government's censorship priorities. I don't know if AI base models are natural monopolies but they might be.
- robnado 3y agoIf there is plenty of competition in their field, let them do what they want. If they have a monopoly or an oligopoly of a few providers that all conspire or are coerced to censor, then they should be forbidden from censoring.