> So the real complaint of these people is that the plugin simply exists by default, which apparently is enough to get the product banned from certain companies.
Yup, because "installed/not installed" is something companies know how to handle - whether by policy, or by restrictions set by IT. "Installed and enabled/not enabled" is something they're not suited to handle - activation can happen due to misguided user action, or even software update. AI space is still very much unclear wrt. risk/liability, so you can understand corporate being uneasy about it.
Or in more general sense: there's a huge jump between "not existing" and "existing", much greater than between "existing but inert" and "existing and active". Think e.g. about security vulnerabilities: there's a difference between one being unexploited (yet), and it just not being there in the first place.
Yup, because "installed/not installed" is something companies know how to handle - whether by policy, or by restrictions set by IT. "Installed and enabled/not enabled" is something they're not suited to handle - activation can happen due to misguided user action, or even software update. AI space is still very much unclear wrt. risk/liability, so you can understand corporate being uneasy about it.
Or in more general sense: there's a huge jump between "not existing" and "existing", much greater than between "existing but inert" and "existing and active". Think e.g. about security vulnerabilities: there's a difference between one being unexploited (yet), and it just not being there in the first place.