@josch@floss.social

I'm afraid the capture of #Debian will pass through similar insulting behaviours (such pushing LLM output on people who refuse it) that will alienate all politically aware developers.

It's sad, but likely the goal of those who made this move.

Maybe you might find some joy working on #NetBSD or even on #9front.

Good luck!

And thanks for fighting this fight.

@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

"focus on the people" is such a wonderful, populist statement that one might argue you just proved my point.

On the other hand, providing self-sufficient slides is caring about the people you are talking with: you'll give them all they need to recall, deepen, share and even criticize what you said.

All without you.

On the other hand, producing clear slides doesn't exclude "focusing on people" during the presentation.

For example, an interesting approach I've seen is to propose a question on a slide, let the audience provide his answers and then show the speaker ones in the following one.

@giacomo@snac.tesio.it

Also nobody give a shit about English grammar.

Most US people can't even write their own language because their school system is designed to reinforce structural inequality.

So there's no need to use a LLM anyway.

@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

I care enough to prepare self-sufficient slides that people who couldn't attend can use to learn what I have to say at their own pace, without needing me.
It's also a way to take full accountability for what I share because verba volant, scripta manent.

Then I don't simply read the slides, but use them to structure and focus the conversation.

In general to me "bullet-free presentations" smells like red-herrings that try to spread evocative but ungrounded propaganda. I've seen them used a lot by lobbists who lacked strong arguments but had to convince the attenders (or, in a couple of cases, spread FUD). The lack of clear written statements is well suited to adjust the presentation to strong and valid objections, so that the lobbist can negate what he just said by "let me better explaining what I meant".

@davidrevoy@framapiaf.org

Just in case, you might like the #HackingLicense as an alternative to CC-BY-SA + NoAI
https://encrypted.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

However the suggestion to set an "AI training" price tag stands.

@cwebber@social.coop

@davidrevoy@framapiaf.org

You can license your art as you like. Nobody will sue you for using a #CreativeCommon license with additional clausoles. That's just plain #FUD spreading.

Just double check that there is no evident contraddiction between the license and the #NoAI addendum.

My only suggestion is to actually set a (pretty high) price tag on "training" over your art.

That's because to prove copyright infridgement in many courts, you must be able to prove an economical demage that the GenAI should refund.

@farbenstau@infosec.exchange

@davidrevoy@framapiaf.org

Consider to also add an explicit "training fee". Something like: you can use any of my images for generative AI training for 10€ each pixel.