this will affect almost nobody

Is that really true? From https://www.evilsocket.net/2024/09/26/Attacking-UNIX-systems-via-CUPS-Part-I/

Full disclosure, I’ve been scanning the entire public internet IPv4 ranges several times a day for weeks, sending the UDP packet and logging whatever connected back. And I’ve got back connections from hundreds of thousands of devices, with peaks of 200-300K concurrent devices.

It's a bit unclear to me what you refer to with "their argument". What argument exactly?

So what possible morality can you build into the gun to prevent immoral use?

You can't build morality into it, as I said. You can build functionality into it that makes immmoral use harder.

I can e.g.

• limit the rounds per minute that can be fired
• limit the type of ammunition that can be used
• make it easier to determine which weapon was used to fire a shot
• make it easier to detect the weapon before it is used
• etc. etc.

Society considers e.g hunting a moral use of weapons, while killing people usually isn't.

So banning ceramic, unmarked, silenced, full-automatic weapons firing armor-piercing bullets can certainly be an effective way of reducing the immoral use of a weapon.

While an LLM itself has no concept of morality, it's certainly possible to at least partially inject/enforce some morality when working with them, just like any other tool. Why wouldn't people expect that?

Consider guns: while they have no concept of morality, we still apply certain restrictions to them to make using them in an immoral way harder. Does it work perfectly? No. Should we abandon all rules and regulations because of that? Also no.

They can, and are being made. E.g. the state of accessibility on Gome.

Cryptographically signed documents and Matrix?

That doesn't seem to be true? https://flatpak-testing.readthedocs.io/en/latest/distributing-applications.html#gpg-signatures

In what way don't they "securely download" ?

It would depend on the format what is counted as source, and what isn't.

You can create a picture by hand, using no input data.

I challenge you to do the same for model weights. If you truly just sit down and type away numbers in a file, then yes, the model would have no further source. But that is not something that can be done in practice.

Sounds like a wildly unscientific statement, considering e.g ~10% of the US population works in STEM.

How about the current system where we vote and do science?

They actually did not. They clearly state (at least in the text posted by the OP) that you are not allowed to license under a version or derivative of the GPL if it would end up copyleft. The main condition is that it is licensed under a version of the GPL.

(To be clear, I'm talking about the second quote, about combining)