My #Wikipedia request for comment just closed, finally banning #AI content in articles!

[jake4480@c.im]

@quarknova kudos to y'all, this is SO huge.

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@quarknova fucking yes, well done

[quarknova@wikis.world]

@indutny Please keep us posted! I would love for this to become a greater movement, and I'm here if you need any support!

[f4grx@chaos.social]

@quarknova THANK YOU ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️

[f4grx@chaos.social]

@k @quarknova there are article changelogs.

[jessamyn@glammr.us]

@quarknova Congrats, that is a lot of hard work getting those through.

[morningsong@weirder.earth]

@quarknova Oh thank gods I was terrified about this.

[morningsong@weirder.earth]

@quarknova thank you and everyone else who helped for getting this passed.

[educoder@mastodon.online]

@quarknova Wikipedia continues to demonstrate that humanity can just decide to create something wonderful, but it takes real dedication to protect that beauty from those who would take advantage. Thank you for your hard work safeguarding this bastion of collaboration.

[dogiedog64@app.wafrn.net]

https://tenor.com/eKFWyDetRCB.gif

[solardavy@climatejustice.social]

@quarknova

[yoasif@mastodon.social]

@quarknova I think that unfortunately, this policy is exactly what big tech wants - fresh training knowledge and training data from humans, which the tech companies are free to remix into new public domain works that are not protected by share-alike.

With this policy, Wikipedia demands that humans work for the bots for free, and the humans can't even take advantage of the bots to work against the theft of the commons.

[philbarker@mastodon.scot]

@quarknova oh well done, and thank you.!

[bodomenke@hessen.social]

@quarknova @robpike I am not sure that this will work out.

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@yoasif @quarknova You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no way for humans to "take advantage of the bots to work against the theft of the commons". Slop-spewing bots cannot magically create new knowledge of the real world. All they can do is remix things that were already written and scooped up into their training set to make something that sounds plausible but that has no provenance.

Yes, malevolent capitalists will continue to scrape and attempt to enclose the commons. We fight them and continue to maintain the things we need and that nourish us. We don't destroy our own treasures to keep them from copying.

[yoasif@mastodon.social]

@dalias @quarknova I don't actually believe that the bots can generate knowledge, but that is what we are told.

The lie is revealed with the demand for real human knowledge.

It isn't "malevolent capitalists" -- it is Wikipedia that has sold out its community: https://www.avclub.com/wikipedia-ai-partnerships-meta-amazon-microsoft

If it is good for the goose, why isn't good enough for the gander?

More precisely, why continue to contribute to Wikipedia when they have preemptively sold out the commons?

[yoasif@mastodon.social]

@quarknova I would say that the battle was lost when Wikipedia allowed big tech to buy access to copyleft content without needing to share alike.

Your new policy simply enforces "fresh meat" for the models, without any requirement for reciprocity back to the commons.

Wikipedians then, are signing up to work for free to feed the models, while people downstream from the models can use their labor entirely for free without giving back.

[elduvelle@neuromatch.social]

@quarknova yes!!

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@yoasif @quarknova That was a mistake, for complex reasons. But it doesn't justify burning down commons that you don't have the means to replicate outside of the organization at present.

[lykrast@eldritch.cafe]

@quarknova yay