charonn0

Not if there are going to be hundreds of millions of them, no.

SSL/TLS, the "S" in HTTPS, and other network encryption protocols such as SSH, use a technique called a Diffie-Hellman key exchange. This is a mode of cryptography where each side generates two keys: a public half and a private half. Anything encrypted with the public half is only decryptable by the associated private half (and vice versa).

You and Youtube only ever exchange the public halves of your respective key pairs. If someone snoops on the key exchange all they can do is insert spoofed messages, not decrypt real ones.

Moreover, the keypairs are generated on the fly for each new session rather than reused. This means that even a future compromise of youtube won't unlock old sessions. This is a concept called forward secrecy.

Message spoofing is prevented by digital signatures. These also use the Diffie-Hellman principle of pairs of public/private keys, but use separate longer-term key pairs than those used with encryption. The public half of youtube's signing key, as presented by the server when you connect to it, has to be digitally signed by a well-known public authority whose public signing key was shipped with your web browser.

If OpenAI owns a Copyright on the output of their LLMs, then I side with the NYT.

If the output is public domain--that is you or I could use it commercially without OpenAI's permission--then I side with OpenAI.

Sort of like how a spell checker works. The dictionary is Copyrighted, the spell check software is Copyrighted, but using it on your document doesn't grant the spell check vendor any Copyright over it.

I think this strikes a reasonable balance between creators' IP rights, AI companies' interest in expansion, and the public interest in having these tools at our disposal. So, in my scheme, either creators get a royalty, or the LLM company doesn't get to Copyright the outputs. I could even see different AI companies going down different paths and offering different kinds of service based on that distinction.

My point is that it's not a good illustration.

Just read through some of the responses I've gotten. Some people think it's a good illustration because it's very plausible. Some because it's not at all plausible.

I'm saying it's not a good illustration because it's not at all plausible.

Americans are not the caricatures of evil and malice you seem to think we are.

Are you referring to something specific?

Of all the things you could reasonably criticize the US over, wheelchair accessibility ain't one of them. Especially compared to Europe.

• The right to make medical decisions on behalf of the other
• The right to visit the other in the hospital
• The right to make funeral arrangements for the other
• The right to survivor's benefits (veteran's benefits, Social Security, private pension, etc.)
• Income tax breaks and credits
• Tax breaks on inheritance and estate taxes
• Tax breaks on money and property transfers between spouses
• Immigration and naturalization rights
• Can't be forced to testify against the other (usually)
• Communications between married partners are privileged from discovery in civil and criminal cases (usually)
• Joint adoption rights
• Bereavement leave
• Joint bankruptcy protection
• Automatic recognition of the relationship by every state, nation, etc.

Etc. There's something like 1,000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that attach through marriage only.

I just thought "pirate-friendly" was concise.

tl;dr: The users' comments say that a certain ISP is pirate-friendly. Studios want to use the comments against the ISP (not the users).

Chakotay once used the TPD as an excuse to not answer a question from Janeway.

And she just accepted it.

The video appears to just be clips from the movie without commentary.