"we work with people on things that help people"

edit: The training on stolen stuff to sell a ghoulish version of what the people driven out of work used to make back -- a totally valid criticism dumb comments non-withstanding -- relates to art and text, not code so much, since there is a lot of open source and things in the public domain. But that it being more or less "morally fine" doesn't change the quality of it, or the say people (as opposed to an LLM that would nibble that slop right up and go "yeah that's right, that's soo ironic, so [total opposite of what it said before]") have in what and who they like.

Are you referring to a specific statement by the authors, or is this just a straw-Goomba?

I don't understand what is funny about that? "download copyrighted content" is a statement so unspecific it basically applies to almost all networked applications.

Since you said "help" it gets even worse, because it now includes all software that facilitates networking without performing networking.

For example, a terminal emulator or bash are software that "helps people download copyrighted content" even though neither of them have anything to do with networking or downloading.

I'm really struggling to laugh.

If your point is that their project is designed to break platform rules while they themselves impose platform rules then your "joke" breaks down based on reading vs writing. You can use yt-dlp to watch a youtube video on a locally installed video player, that's not the same as using yt-dlp to download a video and then upload it on another platform.

So really, if you wanted to make a point it is "We help people download copyrighted content, and then tacitly allow people to reupload the copyrighted content on other platforms, but we ban AI in spite of the synergy"

What an utterly dystopian attitude.

[dead]