The prompts shown literally invite the LLM to complete the copyrighted text by providing unedited selections and asking the machine to finish those. Even if this is problematic in a small number of cases it is not a use case that undermines the business model of the newspaper since it requires the reader to have access to the original text. Nor will it be easy to demonstrate economic harm since this is not how readers consume news and is very far from how users interact with LLMs. Nor are the archival materials used for training remotely reflective of the "time-sensitive" articles that newspapers sell. And archival materials are easily available elsewhere so where is the case for economic harm?

The courts are going to rule that LLM training is a transformative use case that is protected as fair use under copyright law. They may rule that if an LLM-powered service is explicitly designed to enable copyright violation that is illegal, but there is no way any court is going to look at these examples and see it as anything other than the NYT fishing to try and generate a violation by using the LLM in a way that is very different than the service is intended to be used and which -- even if abused -- doesn't hurt the business model under which the text has been produced.

The most likely outcome is that LLM providers will add some sort of filter on output to prevent machines from regurgitating source documents. But this isn't a court case the NYT can win without gutting fair use protections, and that would be a terrible thing.

Perhaps you are being a bit cynical? There are certainly no problems that can't be solved by giving more money to government initiatives like the MaRS Centre in Ontario. These institutions also create jobs and are businesses of a certain sort, so funding them is supporting business directly.

And who can argue with the results? Several promising entrepreneurs each year take advantage of these critical programs to consult with pro-business advisers who assist in job creation by recommending they apply for 3k tax breaks.

You missed the last paragraph.

The dominant strategy for users is indeed to broadcast two nodes.

the irony is that POW is actually more complex here, which is why it is vulnerable to these attacks

The sybil-proof mechanism here is not POS but a variant of POW.

I think perhaps you should read the paper if you want to have a deeper discussion? An understanding of how the mechanism works should make it clear how the solution enables outbound payments to network nodes, which -- in turn -- creates a for-profit incentive to run access points and network infrastructure.

Self-provisioning networks are indeed more strongly resistant to "centralization" than those which are deployed by outside parties. The alternative in the blockchain space is a reliance on outside parties and business models like Infura to provide access nodes and APIs. Unfortunately, any external business model capable of monetizing such infrastructure requires closure around data-and-money-flows, which creates key points where cartelization and monopolization emerges.

Looking at the links you've provided, afaict you seem mostly concerned that the term "sybil-proof" is used to describe a situation in which not using multiple identifies to collude is a dominant strategy instead of an "impossibility according to the laws of physics"? Four points here:

The first is we're dealing with an academic term that is used in a specific context ("no information propagation without self-cloning") and even more specifically in the context of an impossibility proof that has stood for a decade; showing that this impossibility proof is not actually valid is a substantive step forwards and nitpicking terminology is missing the point.

The second is that your definition isn't better. Even networks with trusted third parties cannot prevent sybilling by this definition since it creates a definitional impossibility. While a certificate authority can limit entry, it can never truly know that two distinct identities are not controlled by the same person. All a CA really does is provide a point of closure (monopolization, centralization) which can theoretically identify and tax colluding participants.

The third is that achieving a dominant strategy in which sybilling is disincentivized is a massive step forward. It does not make sense to refer to this as "sybil-resistance" in a field in which mechanisms without this property are considered to have "sybil-resistance".

Finally, and most importantly, one of the consequences of this mechanism that is that all attack vectors that can be carried out using multiple identities are more efficiently carried out with a single identity. So it is not the existence of multiple identities or the collusion between them that is the source of the problem.

Do you want your transaction fee to pay for mining, or do you want it to pay for the servers that run the network? If it pays for mining, who pays for the servers that run the network?