None of this answers the question: even if @Irvick stops distributing or participating in any way with this "stagex" distro, that "stagex" distro continues its life outside of the jurisdiction, at most you start treating it like contraband drugs within your jurisdiction.

With LLM's anyone will be able to disengage such "default wars" in popular software, so there isn't really any border control when LLM's form a large surface area of the border.

▲

kube-system 2 days ago | parent [-]

That’s always been the case for things distributed on the internet. It’s irrelevant in terms of evaluating one’s personal compliance with the law.

▲

DoctorOetker a day ago | parent [-]

> It’s irrelevant in terms of evaluating one’s personal compliance with the law.

That's precisely what I discussed: the case where this person fully complies and ceases distribution (but the distro doesn't cease being distributed by others).

▲

kube-system a day ago | parent [-]

So what? That's how all laws work. What if I don't rob my local convenience store, but someone else does?

Don't make the mistake of logically getting caught up on the idea of laws "preventing crime". They never have, and they never will. The deter crime by providing for penalties when someone breaks the law.

▲

DoctorOetker 17 hours ago | parent [-]

But they don't deter crime when people outside of the jurisdiction, or anyone inside the jurisdiction can provide for themselves with the help of LLM's.

	▲	kube-system 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Every law only applies inside of the jurisdiction where it applies. That's the nature of how political boundaries work, it has nothing to do with LLMs.