We were the first int he country to ever achieve this with an industry enabled release. The argument over this int he talk page is that "they would to trust Indian sources" So once all sources that does not fit the (western) wiki editors is considered non reliable, the editors decide personally on what is true and what is not.

If the article was badly built the community should have fixed it or are they expecting the people who know things to come in and edit content related to them?

Throwing away historic pages without due consideration or research is absolute shame.

(page was not prepared by us nor was it written up by anyone related to us)

If anyone would like to reach out to my team please do at blaise@getglass.co :) Would be happy to help figure out how to get through.

Which wont fundamentally classify as "Art". Magazines those use high quality human artists production will continue to sell in more value, simply because, what they contain are always unique and new. AI fails to render anything new other than a mashup of existing patterns. Human artists can re-imagine and re-contextualise. AI cant' :)

But here, the legal system is going to bit anyone who would fully use AI as they would be zero copyright or intellectual property rights attached with anything an AI creates unless they can prove that it came as a product of training on data they own and produced alone. If it involves general data online there wont be any intellectual rights they can claim for the creation. Hence making each copy of that worthless.

The fact that secret behaviors can be well concealed within a ML generated model makes it critical to start defining what can and can't be tried.

That is not true. As long as the software is not licensed, we do not have a legal right to use the code as it is an intellectual property of someone else. Using such code opens up the ability for the owner to sue us if he is in the right place with the right preparation.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't licensed at all. I was arguing from the point of view of the author, not the user. Because there is no contract nor consideration/payment, the author is (or ought to be, morally) by default under no obligations nor liabilities.

Can't press this enough being someone who expected clear customer service than from OSS maintainers than understand it is a community effort. I was 13 then, but still was a pretty wrong thing to expect.

Where would you like it saved from ?

Hmmm. That sounds very reasonable. Probably my Arch setup doesn't make it any better.

Interest in quasi crystals, crystallography and quantum emergence seem to be on the rise.

Well that was a rabbit hole to fall into. The emergence stuff reads like pseudoscience to me, though.