>you should focus on making sure that your version of the product is the best one. So that the people will naturally use it instead of those repackaged versions.
Do you have any concrete ideas for how to do this or are you just saying this to defend piracy?
I feel like there is a double standard going on here.
There is another link talking about people generating images with AI that have signatures of artists. One, fairly reasonable, in my opinion, way to think about it is that the AI is not to blame for generating the image, but the person who generated it is to blame for publishing it. In other words, the AI service sharing the image with the user is different from the user sharing the image with the world because it's a tool.
But in this case, the situation is reversed: the user is sharing something with the AI. And then we see the hypocrisy. When it's the user doing it, the blame is found the instant it's shared between user and AI.
It's like AI companies invoke some sort of "user-AI privacy privilege" to shield themselves from criticism when the AI generates things people don't like, but that privilege only exists to shield the AI side, never the user side.
They'll enjoy the concept when it favors then, and pretend it never existed when it doesn't.
If it can be illegal to write something to the AI because it's considered "publishing," then it's equally illegal for the AI to reproduce something copyrighted to the user, as publishing has to go both ways.
Another great innovation was implanting chips in people's brains that send everything they see, hear, say, and think to the nearest police station. That sure helped reduce crime at the low, low cost of an obsolete concept called privacy.
Some people, specially on HN, routinely complain about ads on free online resources. Well, now there are no ads. The resources are gone. "[T]here’s no incentive for people to make high-quality free content." I wonder if this is what they wanted.
AI: compiling C code...