HN always has these completely contrived counterarguments. What is actually going to realistically happen that will prevent use of an LLM provider? Did you think that the OP literally meant the 12 years or maybe it was just to show how expensive using a Mac Mini as an alternative is?
> how expensive using a Mac Mini as an alternative is?
I think it goes without saying. And it is eminently evident over last couple of decades that from compute to storage to meals 3rd part providers have saved billions upon billions of dollars to enterprises and individuals alike by providing these essential services.
Yes, it feels like that. Whereas frontier labs are pushing the frontier of human knowledge, selflessly working towards pulling humanity from dark ages. Ignorant peasants trying to burn the modern civilization down. Don't they know data centers and fiber lines are lifeline of modern economy?
I am not sure if you replied in good faith, but here you go.
The reason is that they have been trying again and again to do this in various forms, slightly modifying tactics so any opposition to it has to start from scratch.
Isn't that simply how politics works, though? People who are invested in security keep lobbying for their interests. Generally when political actors fail they dust themselves off and try again, on any issue. Also you haven't shown how the EU is diffrent from any other jurisdiction in this regard.
In the end, US doesn't need encryption backdoors because most chat and email protocols are not end-to-end encrypted and the TLS data streams are decrypted in the datacenter owned by US companies.
The protocols themselves are not important anymore. It's all variants of http to Google or Amazon. What's important is control of the end user device, and Google and Apple keep a remote root connection with "their" terminals at all time. Any data that is obtained remotely will be from the presentation layer, not the network layer. This is also harder to US adversaries to access, so an argument could be made that for the majority of normal people this is a net increase in security.
If you wanted to make the corresponsing strong argument for Chat Control and its ilk, the EU just wants (the juicy part of) what the US already has. The remote root level control of most end user devices is not under EU juristiction. So they naturally want companies operating in the EU to give them one piece of access to the presentation layer, too.
This argument is what one must be prepared for, the encryption itself is less relevant..
Chat control is merely their newest attempt at this, carefully navigating around the reasons it was opposed last year.
They keep trying to legislate encryption backdoors by any means, and once they manage to get their foot into the door every other country will use that as a precedent to also mandate it.
If you release an open source software with GPL license that is just a wrapper of an MIT licensed library, and someone manages to misuse your software, should you be entitled to damages?
It sounds like a coupon website installing malware to me. But... names are just names. When adoption gets large enough, every name becomes unimportant I guess.
iShares, iDeal, WhatsApp: the Millenial trinity of European essentials :D
I mean, who cares how you pronounce it? Each country will have its own variant, similar to how euro is pronounced differently in different places, and eventually one will become the English status quo
reply