"Value" rides exponentials when it's the same company manufacturing the counterfeit legal objections as is "reviewing" those objections.

It's a denial of service attack on public process, and gov adoption of these products is a defiance of public trust.

That may be acceptable for the data product (and it's certainly important for provenance), but downstream users of the data product are generally not preserving that. Moreover, professional norms of conduct usually require epistemically-precise citation, which these systems cannot do.

Striking parallels with George Washington surrounded by a halo and swastikas at Madison Square Garden in 1939.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=NC1M...

Oklo's license application for the Aurora micro-reactor design was denied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2022.
www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2135/...

They are now in a DOE pilot program waiting for DOE authorization to begin fabrication without needing NRC approval.
www.ans.org/news/2025-09...

Publishing to arXiv, Zenodo, or similar with a Creative Commons license is insurance (and wholesome). Either the whole document or a report that at least contains relevant figures, etc. If forced to later sign a copyright assignment/exclusive license (can fight), the CC license remains irrevocable.

Note that training can be fair use (as Judge Alsup has ruled) and some uses of a trained model can be fair use (e.g., phrase embeddings for conference scheduling) while other uses would not be (e.g., reproducing an entire book from its first line, arxiv.org/abs/2505.12546).

Reproducing source content (or obfuscations thereof) violates even CC-BY because it doesn't honor the requirement of attribution. That's non-consensual and plagiarism (misconduct in some professions). The legality hinges on whether the output can be considered fair use.

Fox has since changed the headline, but they initially ran with those videos as being real.

Their old definition of AGI was strictly financial ($100B/year profit), which feels pretty unattainable given that everyone is losing money. This may be a way to make it easier to declare AGI to juice waning investor confidence.

This is FOMO-driven university administration. It also appears to be abdication of shared governance, as most impacts of this choice will be on matters that faculty are granted principal authority over, yet the article doesn't mention a shared governance process.