We now note that that we do not waive our attribution requirements for Spritely Goblins, which are present in Apache v2 (and for that matter, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and most FOSS licenses) https://codeberg.org/spritely/goblins/pulls/998/files

@yantar92 @cwebber

.. no the collection of training data is a problem because of the massive amount of strain it places on infrastructure set for the commons that makes it impossible for anyone else to access, and becuase its appropriating the commons then selling it back to you,

which still has nothing to do w copyright.

@cwebber @LunaDragofelis it annoys me that ppl would consider a lack of enforcement to be a lack of interest;

i dont want to enforce them because the normal means to do so is via state violence and i might like attribution but im not about to hurt someone over it.

i would however say, leave an issue or message the guy or things like that, about not attributing, generally tell everyone "hey they didnt make that" which ideally? would get out everywhere and no one would really beleive then saying "i made this"

from a certain perspective i dont subscribe too; this could be considered a kind of "enforcement" i suppose,

tbh alot of instances of it are also a mistake somewhat, like not clicking fork or whatever so then it just doesnt include where it came from ..

anyway its not a copyright thing; its just basic courtesy really -- like pirates usually dont even claim they made the thing.

@Li @cwebber @LunaDragofelis the contrast to piracy is apt. I've seen anti-AI libs compare LLMs to piracy, and I've seen AI shills go "well, if you support piracy, how can you hate AI?" But one of the big differences is attribution. I don't mind people ""stealing"" my work to consume it. Art is made to be shared. I *do* mind people pretending they--or a statistical averages machine--made something that I poured my heart and labor into. Attribution matters, IP laws are still capitalist bullshit

@Li @cwebber Sure. But I am asking about very specific issue - attribution.

@yantar92 @cwebber no your using someone saying attribution is an issue; then going "oh if we just do attribution then its acceptable" no, its not because its not the only issue

@Li @cwebber I am not interested to discuss other problems with LLMs here. I am only looking to see about attribution specifically.

@yantar92 @cwebber cool? then your question is dishonest- they still dont exist in a vaccum despite your insistence to say that they do,

@Li @cwebber Yet, the question about attribution can be addressed independently. I am not sure what is dishonest about this.

@raphaelmorgan @cwebber @LunaDragofelis another part of this is that it treats a corporation doing something the same as a individual doing it, which has different dynamics at play; but your not allowed to point it out

alot mention an idea of it being for-profit, but thats not really the whole of the issue there and i think not a very good look at things.

another issue is that AI is not piracy its taking the thing and trying to make some product their trying to sell .. piracy is just the thing distributed by someone else .. whos not approved .. and maybe modded to bypass DRM.

but to be honest i tend to avoid; copyright related reasons for saying AI bad for this reason; its not like thats all you have, its also used for mass survailence, the military are training it to murder people, its good at generating propaganda, it encourages reliance on it giving whoever made it lots of power and; also generally training is very intensive on infrastructure, but yeah.

@yantar92 @cwebber your asking if you just add attributiion will ai be acceptable. the answer is no- because of reasons other than attribution, but then you refuse to address those. and say your "only about attribution"

how is that not dishonest?

@bkuhn @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap

The web server was not written in one go as a whole.
It was put together patch by patch
It was therefore A Patchy Server.

Being conscious of assorted things does not entirely rule out occasional flashes of humour, accretions of language, and mnemonic conveniences.

I hope.

@Photo55

What you describe about “A-patchy” is a post-hoc constructed backstory that an unnamed third party came up with, but ultimately was used by the org to build a *false* backstory.

& I (re-)found the receipts on this recently: https://web.archive.org/web/20070501205953/http://www.linux-mag.com/id/472

>“When I thought of the name [Apache] … [I thought it] connoted: ‘Take no prisoners. Be kind of aggressive and kick some ass.‘”
— Brian Behlendorf, founder of Apache [sic] Software Foundation

Cc: @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap

#racism #FOSS

@bkuhn @copiesofcopies Of course the legislative environment has *always* been tailored to proprietary software. Without copyright (and related intellectual restrictions laws), we wouldn't have proprietary software!

What I mean is that Microsoft stepped in and set the tone with assumptions of "oh well it's okay to step all over and ignore the terms of the commons when we ingest them into the model, we would be upset if this happened to our stuff though"... for Microsoft, semi theoretical, but Disney and the record industries have actually done this: they're using AI for some projects, but also suing that their copyrights have been violated.

Copyright for me but not for thee type stuff.

(Which I know we agree about as a concern in this landscape.)

@bkuhn @cwebber

I expect the world looks very different from where you’re sitting than from where I am. Every time I look at my (FOSS-heavy) fedi feed, I’m struck by the contrast between the AI pessimism & skepticism here versus everywhere else I look.

LLMs have become part of everyday life for vast swaths of ordinary people. Skilled software developers routinely use them to produce code that’s far from slop. And probably most importantly, the AI industry is widely viewed as the most significant driver of U.S. economic growth and competitive advantage going right now.

All of those things surely sound negative to you, but they’re descriptively true. And against that backdrop, I see very little possibility that US courts will cut OpenAI et al off at the knees, even though we’ll surely see adverse rulings in cases of obvious misappropriation (Anthropic’s trove of pirated books, Sora reproducing entire songs from its training data).

@bkuhn @cwebber

I expect the world looks very different from where you’re sitting than from where I am. Every time I look at my (FOSS-heavy) fedi feed, I’m struck by the contrast between the AI pessimism & skepticism here versus everywhere else I look.

LLMs have become part of everyday life for vast swaths of ordinary people. Skilled software developers routinely use them to produce code that’s far from slop. And probably most importantly, the AI industry is widely viewed as the most significant driver of U.S. economic growth and competitive advantage going right now.

All of those things surely sound negative to you, but they’re descriptively true. And against that backdrop, I see very little possibility that US courts will cut OpenAI et al off at the knees, even though we’ll surely see adverse rulings in cases of obvious misappropriation (Anthropic’s trove of pirated books, Sora reproducing entire songs from its training data).

@copiesofcopies @bkuhn @cwebber evidence would indicate that pessimism on AI is the norm at this point. Studies show massive unpopularity of AI. People are trying to shoot folks that build AI data centers.

It's not the same pessimism but there's sure a lot of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-majority-voters-say-risks-ai-outweigh-benefits-rcna262196