While it's true that most people in the Netherlands speak English (at some level), it's really not true that Dutch people prefer to speak to each other in English when everyone present speaks Dutch.
The fun thing about climate change is that it is never really too late to make a difference, since every reduction in emitted CO2 results in less warming (even if not in a perfectly linear fashion due to various feedback loops). This means that even when we've already locked in 2C, it is still worth preventing it from going to 2.5C.
So alarmism is good and necessary, we just need to make sure that we also need to take action based on it.
Just to be clear, studies also indicate that we will not realistically limit global heating to anything close to 1.5C, unless very drastic actions are taken immediately (actions on a level that would be seen as extremely radical by most people)
One of the criteria of the most often used definition of open source [0] is that the program is free to use and modify for all purposes. So a noncommercial license would not qualify as open source. This is also a requirement of the free software definition of the FSF, which is also often used to define free/open source.
A possible scenadio might be that one day the user wants to log in to their other fastmail account, which they don't want to be linked to their main one in any way.
But of those benefits you mention, most are not in contradiction with a walkable neighbourhood. In my home town, most things are in walking and biking distance and we still have good public schools, lots of parks and safety. These things have nothing to do with cars, if you just make the choice to create them somewhere walkable.
The (A)GPL licenses were designed for user freedom, not developer freedom. That indeed means that some companies might not want to use it, because they dont want to give their users access to the code. But for the people who prefer this license, that's not an unintended consequence, but the whole point.
I'm no expert in this field, but as I understand it they trained a new GPT model from scratch to play Othello. So the prompts were simply the transcript of moves that came before.
I tried it on the you.com chatbot, which has access to search results of your query. Even though it was already spoiled by receiving a link to this thread in which the correct answer is literally listed, it still managed to come up with nonsense:
> The numbers appear to be arranged in an exponential pattern [1], where each number is approximately 2.3 times larger than the previous number. This pattern can be expressed as: n = 2.3^x, where n is the number and x is the index of the number. So for the numbers you provided, the pattern would be: 925 = 2.3^0 8642 = 2.3^2 37654 = 2.3^3 627418 = 2.3^4
Just because some of its answers are logically coherent due to it following statistical patterns, does not mean that the model is reasoning. Reasoning implies some type of discipline which prevents nonsensible arguments (even in uncommon situations).
I think it's really problematic to use the word "reason" to describe what GPT does. As others have commented in this thread, GPT is a language model, which in no way reasons about anything it writes. It is simply writing whatever fits statistically to the prompt and context. Attributing reasoning or too much intelligence to this could prove quite dangerous.
This question is clearly not relevant to the parent comment, since the linked tweet explicitly states that he would not ban this account as part of his commitment to free speech.
As far as I know, the algorithms used for these are in fact rule-based at this point, not neural networks. Which actually is not much better, since these systems are still propietary and black box. This is of course horrible for a functioning sense of justice, since the decisions made are now (partly) dependent on opaque decisions made by an algorithm of a company without any arguments you can contest or inspect. Furthermore, it has been shown that these algorithms frequently are racially biased in various ways.
Even if something so absurd would happen, the version of the code from just before the change to a new license would still be available under the GPLv3. So everyone who wouldn't agree with this change (which would presumably be everyone), could simply fork the code from that point and continue under the GPLv3.
The more realistic risk of a CLA on GPL'ed code is that the person in control would switch it to a more permissive license without the copyleft restrictions of the GPL. That would actually have a negative impact that others can't mitigate by forking (although with a fork you could of course again make any new code added to the project the original license again).