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

mxchara@cyberpunk.lol

@bkuhn @copiesofcopies gosh it's like you actually know you're doing something wrong, prompting you to appropriate the language of queer liberation because you need to be sneaky about TRUSTING LLM SLUDGE

erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net

@argv_minus_one @bkuhn @copiesofcopies @cwebber @twipped No, they didn’t train it. I personally do not currently feel a need to train something.

As for the hardware:

paco@infosec.exchange

@bkuhn Respect for being open about it here, where it is intensely unpopular.

I don’t care about “proprietary.” What about intellectual property theft? What about damage to the environment? What about diversion of SO much resources away from things that help people and into things that help investors?

Every time someone uses it, especially as a technology leader who knows better than most, they signal that all those trade-offs are acceptable for the trivial, tepid benefit of writing bland text faster. And the benefit of firing people. And the benefit of wealth aggregation.

In my position, I have the financial means and the knowledge to fight against it. If those of us who CAN choose not to use it, instead choose to support it, how can we expect anyone else to make the pragmatic, better-for-everyone choice?

Nobody gets to hide behind “this is my personal choice and nobody should tell me otherwise.” If a person set their trash on fire in their yard in order to dispose of it, their personal preference doesn’t matter. That’s not ok. Burning fossil fuels to power the most catastrophically inefficient technology ever made is not a personal choice. Climate change affects generations to come, not just people alive today. AI today accelerates climate change. It’s super simple and absolutely directly causal.

paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange

@cwebber

depends a bit on the goal of the FOSS as to how important copy-left, licensing, etc. might be but attribution is the crucial underpinning regardless of which licensing you do or don't do. who did the work is vital to know.

fabio@zirk.us

@bkuhn @copiesofcopies @cwebber I'm sure the fascist American companies write great policies!

linear@nya.social

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @copiesofcopies@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop i have a question.

why would you expect that it would do anything other than bias you towards allowing it?

the corporate interests of those who trained the LLM are in favor of this outcome. you cannot expect it to to do anything but lead you in this direction, regardless of whether it is correct.

by deciding to allow it to help you, you have already forfeited making the decision.

nev@status.nevillepark.ca

@bkuhn @copiesofcopies @cwebber bruh.

linear@nya.social

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @copiesofcopies@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop Claude is a machine that makes the average decision.

if the "average decision" is good enough for you, then whatever, i guess.

but isn't the Software Freedom Conservancy a bit more important than that? isn't part of the point not to just blindly do the same thing everyone else is doing?

linear@nya.social

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @copiesofcopies@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop

i do not have software freedom in a world where anyone with an LLM can take my software from me and use it without my permission by laundering it through a bit of matrix math, so that they no longer have to obey the attribution requirements, or anything else they decide they don't like, such as the entire contents of the GPL.

your decision here does not make me feel like the Software Freedom Conservancy is fighting for my software freedom.

drahardja@sfba.social

@cwebber @bkuhn @copiesofcopies The lure of using GenAI regularly and thus actively helping the destruction of the commons (among other harms), is especially strong when one finds a use case which is genuinely convenient or time-saving. Just because it saves me time doesn’t mean that it magically becomes harmless; that’s merely me rationalizing my use.

linear@nya.social

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @copiesofcopies@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop like, i'm sorry if this fact makes you uncomfortable, but as a SFC board member, every time you ask Claude about your policy, you have to remember not only that you aren't talking to a person, but also that you are not talking to your computer, either. you are talking to Anthropic.

so, what you are doing is allowing Anthropic, the corporation, into the room, and giving them a share of your seat on the board, and a leading voice, in the only policy that could reject their interests, by outsourcing your policy decisions to them.

i do not trust Anthropic to forward the interests of the SFC.

i also do not trust anyone who lets a corporation like Anthropic make decisions for them on behalf of such an organization.

linear@nya.social

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @copiesofcopies@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop

as a thought experiment, consider whether you would change your behavior if it turned out that every request to Anthropic was outsourced to a "call center" somewhere halfway across the globe, where a bunch of people were trained by Anthropic to always provide similar responses and pretend that they are an AI. would you still be so comfortable with using this?

(leave aside the fact that this sort of thing actually sometimes happens in real life, with real "AI" deployments)

linear@nya.social

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @copiesofcopies@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop this isn't a "think of the poor people", by the way. feel free to imagine that they are well-compensated and happy with their jobs, because that still doesn't get rid of the issue here.