A hole for who? My understanding is that most of us were not vulnerable. Only specific setups were.

Sounds like bullshit AI hype for many of us, and real security threats for a few.

If the cops express interest in your data and then you take active steps to conceal or erase said data, they might charge you with Obstruction.

If there is an automated system, the charge is less likely to be brought, and unlikely to stick, because you were not responding to something that just happened.

(And I’m not saying the guy in this situation actually did what they said he did. Cops lie constantly. Video or it didn’t happen.)

That’s what they said happened. We have no idea if it actually happened, and based on the report here, there’s no reason we (or a jury) should believe what they say.

Do they have video? Not that we’ve seen, from what I’ve read, but maybe it exists.

Phone calls are one of the least secure ways to communicate. Guaranteed that the phone company and spy agencies are listening to it all.

Google might or might not know where I live but if I send them a utility bill from my Google account then they definitely know where I live.

Not quite. If you know or shouldreasonabley believe someone is about to arrest you or sue you, depending on the circumstances, judges can tell juries to assume the erased data would show something bad. But it depends on the details.

Nothing is needed. Erase your shit before you travel in or out of the US.

deleted by creator

Yeah this is a key point. It’s pretty safe to say that AI generated code that’s based on open source projects is going to be trained on open source projects. If the people running the AI software make any mistake then they could be facing massive copyright violations.

So I’m kind of interested in whether that type of risk is something that would be pragmatic for a company to take. There probably are some situations where it would be, but I’m not convinced that would happen too often.

Noble intent? If so, lurk moar ffs.

Oh my friend, you can replace open source with AI. You can do it, especially if you don’t care about the consequences…

Hmm. I feel like conflating a subdomain with a password is a particularly sketchy idea, but you do you.

One browser to own them all would have made the anti monopoly cases against Google even stronger, and it would have been broken up a decade ago.

I know US antitrust is mostly a joke, but Google has already lost multiple times, and the only question is the scope of the remedies, so this is an easy bit of guesswork.

Also might be worth thinking about what else you are self hosting. Don’t want to self host all of your communication apps; that would be brittle.

I love how you ignore all the comments that actually tried to help OP. Or maybe you posted early on but you can’t be bothered to go back and edit your response. And then you pretend that AI tries to help us do anything, as if it had motivation or volition. Come on now.

Of course we can blame them. There’s a ton of great help available, but perhaps they’re like you, and their ego is so fragile that they can’t be troubled to scroll past a few trolls to find the perfect answers.

But I think we’re all used to dealing with trolls. Everyone knows how to ignore the trolls. I think the bigger problem is that people are afraid to show ignorance, even if they definitely are ignorant, like OP was here. Imagine that, you don’t want to look foolish on the internet in front of people who don’t know who you are and never will, so you turn to a solution that doesn’t work and actually has the potential to ruin the hardware you bought… So yeah, that’s strange, that’s not rational, we can give psychological explanations, but none of them make the person in question appear reasonable.

Name the language. Don’t ask for a drop in replacement.

Oh dear God, what were you thinking? Why did you turn to chatgbt knowing that you could have actually found a website that told you what to do correctly written by someone who actually did it before?

Several explanations exist. First ShareAlike or GPL require re-sharing of downstream content. But if things are used for training, and later the model produces new code, that isn’t implicated by copyright legislation… And we could discuss whether that’s ethical or moral, of course, and there are various opinions…

I feel like this is similar to the weakness of BSD licenses, Public Domain releases, and CC BY licensing. Someone can come along and take all of your work, polish it a little better, and sell their new service. Then you don’t get recognition or support, they get some contracts from their friends’ companies for a few years, and you feel sad.

The other commonly-remarked angle is the death of the Web. Because so many websites are script-generated copy/paste, and they are tweaked to fit SEO, and Google doesn’t give a fuck, it’s hard for real website authors to get seen, and without any visibility, their work ends up being personal or pointless. This isn’t limited to open source, but it’s closely connected.

Google spent money to find bugs but won’t spend money to fix them. That simply makes the devs’ lives worse. It’s an asshole move.