Fedditor385

I don't like Nintendo, and even here they totally failed their communication because there was 100 ways to put this more user-friendly, but they are right in not issuing refunds. Things can go on sale, you don't go and ask for refund because you bought it a few months before at full price and sue companies for not telling you in advance there will be sale, when and for how much discount.

It's just a different analogy but the point is the same, why not ban poisonous ingredients? It implies poisonous mushrooms also, but doesn't criminalize cooking.

Well, if I use AI, it's still considered I wrote the code, just with help. And I personally never saw the code nor had access to it. Also, whatever I implemented must be clean room implementation then. If it was that simple, then we would not have the copyright issue to begin with. LLM can't be an author nor can it be legally liable.

How can I prove that I have ownership over code I wrote myself, and that it isn't copyrighted somewhere in the world? How can anyone prove that code is written by a human or AI (if you don't commit obvious AI harness files and folders)?

Developers also "generate" code and are also "trained" on code they written as freelancers or employees for others which is potentially copyrighted. In that aspect just because it's written by hand, doesn't imply the writer has copyright on it.

Then why not say it's not allowed to upload code you don't have copyright to? This would make sense, nobody would question it and it would generally also cover AI-generated code.

Mentioning vibe coding just upgraded it into a social and moral topic, while the sole fact that AI generated code is no issue at all, just that there is not a general concensus in the world who holds the copyright to that code.

It's kinda like blanked banning cooking, because you can't cook without a knife, and knife can be used as a weapon.

What is "minimum necessary data"? Or does everyone define that for themselves?

US-based software does have hosting physically in EU, which makes it in the same legal domain, but US has the CLOUD Act, where US can force their companies, even if abroad, to pull data to US. So, being simply in the same legal domain or country does not make it sovereign. You actually need your own hardware and the full software stack where there is no foregin ownership to actually be sovereign.

And if you just scale up from individual persons to nations/blocks, whats the difference between "I will not use Google Drive, I will selfhost Nextcloud" and "EU will not use Google Drive, it will selfhost Nextcloud".

Me in this case is just not a person, but a country/political entity. EU is selfhosting instead of using US-provided hosting.

Please stop calling seflhosting "digital sovereignty". It's just a marketing buzzword, but basically there is nothing there except "I will host it myself".

Oh, I better then go ahead and buy them at high prices before it turns out in 2-3 years that he was wrong.

Maybe they can protect themselves with a.. great firewall of USA?

Imagine the failed democracy, where the elected representative says that what failed him was pursuing his own agenda, instead of the will of the people he is supposed to represent.

Or what happens to the stock price once the temporary surge in demand fades or new companies enter the market and disrupt it.