Suddenly, the government having my DNA record seems less terrible. I’m only half kidding…

Remember when the world freaked out over encryption, thinking every coded message was a digital skeleton key to anarchy? Yeah, the 90s were wild with the whole PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) encryption fight. The government basically treated encryption like it was some kind of wizardry that only "good guys" should have. Fast forward to today, and it's like we're stuck on repeat with open model weights.

Just like code was the battleground back then, open model weights are the new frontier. Think about it—code is just a bunch of instructions, right? Well, model weights are pretty much the same; they're the brains behind AI, telling it how to think and learn. Saying "nah, you can't share those" is like trying to put a genie back in its bottle after it's shown you it can grant wishes.

The whole deal with PGP was about privacy, sending messages without worrying about prying eyes. Fast forward, and model weights are about sharing knowledge, making AI smarter and more accessible. Blocking that flow of information? It's like telling scientists they can't share their research because someone, somewhere, might do something bad with it.

Code lets us communicate with machines, model weights let machines learn from us. Both are about building and sharing knowledge. When the government tried to control encryption, it wasn't just about keeping secrets; it was about who gets to have a voice and who gets to listen. With open model weights, we're talking about who gets to learn and who gets to teach.

Banning or restricting access to model weights feels eerily similar to those encryption wars. It's a move that says, "We're not sure we trust you with this power." But just like with code, the answer isn't locking it away. It's about education, responsible use, and embracing the potential for good.

Innovation thrives on openness. Whether it's the lines of code that secure our digital lives or the model weights that could revolutionize AI, putting up walls only slows us down. We've been down this road before. Let's not make the same mistake of thinking we can control innovation by restricting access.

Maybe some third world countries offers itself as a Internet Heaven.

Did you mean 2001-09-11?

> the peak of your civilization

The more I think of it, the more I think this time was the actual peak of civilization (from a westerner's point of view). The Winter Olympics opening ceremony in Nagano in 98, when the world was singing the Ode to Joy was that peak moment for me [0]. After that, it went all downhill.

[0] https://youtu.be/7aGNei01fzQ?feature=shared&t=6290

On the one hand, violence is always a threat to speaking freely. This is not new. At the very least getting fired is what most people can expect if they speak freely about legitimately confidential things at work. Even things like disparaging co-workers, in a public setting, or harassing people at work by saying inappropriate things can get you fired.

You are free to speak freely, but there are consequences, Free Speech does not imply uou can say what you like consequence free.

In some (criminal) industries, speaking freely will get you killed. If Hollywood is to be believed, speaking against the rich and powerful can get you killed. (I suspect it happens, I suspect its nowhere near as common as Hollywood makes out.)

To your point though Free Speech (capital F) has a specific constitutional meaning, and covers the consequences the govt can apply to your speaking freely. It does not promise no consequences by companies.

There is no threat to Freedom of Speech here, because what he was doing was not that kind of speech. Of course there is a chilling effect on speaking freely, his speaking out had consequences (regardless of the hand that pulled the trigger.)

In short you can't just say whatever you like (as E Jean Carrol understands) without consequence. That's not what Freedom of Speech means.

He should have done like Snowden. Got out of the country before exposing material. Shouldn't a witness in a high profile case like him been granted some sort of police escort by the court?

Guy paid the ultimate price for freedom of speech and informing the public. Wonder if someone will sustain there is no threat to freedom of speech because the lawsuit involved the company where he was employed, not the government.

I'm also reminded of Aaron Schartz, as well as the ordeal Steven Donzinger went through against Chevron. Fortunately survived, but had to serve some prison time[1].

[1]. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/steven-don...

You mean like how you learned from others? Against their will?