• 1 Post
  • 89 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle
  • Primarily being developed by someone who was most likely a sexist, three years ago, and who is now being dogpiled by people who probably weren’t ever going to use his software anyway.

    If anyone really cared about this, they should just fork the code and start their own inclusive version. Literally steal the asshat’s project out from under him. Instead, everyone is coming out of the woodwork to try and score asinine dunks on the dev’s shitty opinion.



  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoMemes@lemmy.mlJust sayin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    But if you can’t summarize the solution to a complex societal problem with a history to it into a single simple sentence that can be used as a punchy “hot take”, clearly you just don’t want a solution! /s

    Way too many people in the world who are more willing to believe that things suck because everyone’s too stupid to try the “obvious” solution, instead of the fact that most societal issues are icebergs of complication and causes.



  • I think this is a misunderstanding of how most of the AI that feed into workflows work. Most of them don’t dynamically re-train live based off how users are using them. At least not outside of the context of that user/chat instance.

    Most likely what these and others are doing is to download pre-trained open source AI datasets thrn and run them locally so they aren’t restrained by any of the commercial AI’s limitations on what they will and won’t output to users. I highly doubt there’s enough material out there to truly train a new AI model on only explicitly racist material. This is just a bunch of assholes doing prompt engineering on open source models running locally.



  • This isn’t about right or wrong though. It’s explicitly about whether or not they broke the law.

    They did. They did so loudly and proudly. This is why we are here, where they lost the legal battle.

    If someone is pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger, and you say “Just try to shoot me! I dare you! You know you won’t you little chickenshit.” then you should have a pretty good expectation to get shot.

    Everything else is valid, but significantly less important. IA has to operate in the rules that currently exist, not what the rules should be. There are better ways to get bad laws changed than to dare someone to find you guilty of them.

    Maybe this case will be the first building block towards overturning the asinine digital lending laws. I would love if it was, but I’m not holding my breath.



  • Yes, let’s just completely misrepresent someone and pretend it’s a quote! That’s fun!

    There are effective ways to challenge laws and to push for new rights. Loudly shouting “I don’t care about your rules, just try and stop me!” was not an effective way for IA to try and do this.

    Furthermore, IA constantly misrepresenting the problem and why they were sued in all their blog posts and press shit also does not help the cause.

    It’s a law in desperate need of abolishment, but this is not how you go about changing it.

    This also was not an effective way for them to ensure these books would continue to be available digitally for the public. They could have quietly leaked batches of the content that only they had out to the ebook piracy groups in a staggered fashion to help obsfucate where it was coming from, then hosted a blog post telling people how to pirate ebooks and where, with a cover your ass disclaimer that everyone needs to abide by their local laws.

    By any metric of success, the way they handled this set them up to lose from the start, and jeapordized one of the most important public resources in the current era. This would be understandable from some small operation of like 5 people trying to digitize shit, not from an organization as large and old as IA.

    I’m not the person who said he had no sympathy, but that is why I have little sympathy about all this: They don’t deserve this outcome, I wish they had won, and I hope the law gets overturned or revised… but they absolutely should have know better that to try and do this the way they did. They fucked around and found out. This coild have ended so much worse for them.




  • My guy, your posts are particularly hard to follow, and you are very very quick to jump to the conclusion that you’re somehow being targeted and under attack. It’s no surprise that people aren’t responding to what you think is appropriate for them to respond to.

    You’ve gone out of your way to provide extra info about irrelevant details: Why does the particular flavor of git you use matter at all to this conversation beyond the fact that you self host, why does it matter that you are on github as well when we are specifically discussing things you believe were sourced from readme.mds you have self hosted?

    Meanwhile you don’t give many details or explanation about the core thing you are trying to discuss, seemingly expecting people to be able to just follow your ramblings.

    Edit: After having re-read your OP, it’s less messy than I initially thought, but jesus christ man you need to work on arranging your points better. It shouldn’t take reading your main post, a few of your comments, and the main post again to get your point: “AI data scrapers appear to treat readme files as public data regardless of any anti-AI precautions or licensing you’ve tried to apply, and they appear to not only grab from github bit also from self-hosted git repositories.”


  • These concepts are not mutually exclusive. You can be right about AI considerably overstepping boundaries and still be exhibiting classic signs of paranoia issues, which OP is.

    Their immediate response to people not reacting to this post and their comments is to immediately jump to the idea that they’re being targeted by their designated enemy. That’s not particularly healthy.

    I’m worried that AI is becoming the new gangstalking for tech aligned people predisposed to disprdered thinking.


  • Just like the “tesla hyperloop” or whatever they’re calling it, it’s not about innovation. It’s about keeping his brands in the public eye as a form of marketing. Even if on a logical level we all know it’s horseshit, it still keeps himself and Tesla salient.

    He can afford to burn an incomprehensible amount of money on stunts for outcomes most people would consider inconsequential.

    I’m not saying it’s 4D chess, it definitely isn’t. He’s not particularly intelligent in that way. That said, I do think there are some very simple reasons for him to do this that go beyond his absolutely insane delusional ego.

    He has enough money that he can continue funding whatever he wants regardless of public opinion. He literally exists at a level where any press is good press as it keeps him fresh in peoples’ minds.



  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlInternet Archive is in danger
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    27 days ago

    Archive has been around for well over a decade with no issues outside of sporadic DMCA claims against user uploaded content. For many many years they have been left alone, despite hosting a shit ton of copyrighted material.

    Occasional legal battles that they’ve handled with no problems with the help of the EFF. This is the first “existential threat” to them in quite a long time.

    This is absolutely because they pulled the emergency library stunt, and they were loud as hell about it. They literally broke the law and shouted about it.

    Libraries are allowed to scan/digitize books they own physically. They are only allowed to lend out as many as they physically own though. Archive knew this and allowed infinite “lend outs”. They even openly acknowledged that this was against the law in their announcement post when they did this.

    I can absolutely say this is their own damn fault while disagreeing with the law they broke. There, I just did.


  • This buries the lede so deep it’s popping out the other side of the globe.

    The entire core of this case is that (in abscence of more lenient agreements with publishers) traditional libraries are allowed to digitize physical books in their posession, as long as they do not lend out more copies than they physically own. The Internet Archive decided that they would lend out infinite copies, because “covid lol”.

    Boston Public Library isn’t being sued because they don’t lend out more than they own! It has precisely zero to do with fucking optics.

    Edit: Don’t get me wrong, I hope they win this case, but them continuing to play stupid helps nobody. Unfortunately, as discussed thoroughly online when they opened the covid19 emergency digital library, they fucked around. Now it seems they may have to find out.


  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlInternet Archive is in danger
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    27 days ago

    This is the worst kind of misrepresentation of tech. Nothing you said is explicitly false, it sounds true in passing, but it sure is effectively false.

    The amount of data you can actually store in any single node/transaction on a given blockchain is traditionally very small. Even most NFTs are not truly “on the chain” as in the image data fully stored in a node/element, it’s instead a “smart contract” which just says X identity owns Y (with Y itself being stored elsewhere). There have been many many attempts at actually storing data on various chains and there hasn’t been any successes significant enough to come even close to being able to store the classic 90’s Space Jam website, let alone the fucking Internet Archive.

    Beyond that, you absolutely can take down nodes in a chain, so to speak. Numerous major “heists” have been “rolled back” or had their nodes/transactions flagged to be ignored by marketplace admins.


  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlInternet Archive is in danger
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    27 days ago

    Exactly. I hate fucking everything about this. I love the internet archive and nearly all they do.

    In principal I love their “covid-19 emergency library” or whatever they called it. In practice? They absolutely know better than to pull stunts and I’m terrified that this will spell the end for one of the greatest knowledge and media resources of the modern age. For shit that was effectively already available to the public through ebook piracy sites.

    They already operated on shaky ground, hosting downloads for a metric ton of shit that is unquestionably still under copyright (despite their claims to only be archival of things that are not), skating by on technicalities and by not drawing too much attention to themselves.

    Plus, there were so fucking many better ways to do the “free digital library” thing without jeapordizing themselves.

    • Have some volunteers “misuse resources”: load an SSD up with the book files, “borrow” some compute power to decrypt/remove drm, pass batches off to existing ebook “dumping” groups to stagger releases and obsfucate the true source. This would ensure that any material they had which was not already available on the high seas would get there.
    • Make a big red banner on the site to a blog post with the generic “While we would never condone piracy or copyright infringement, we understand that times are extremely hard right now [blah blah] here are some links to community guides on how to access learning literature (pirate ebooks) during these trying times [blah blah] Please abide by your local laws.”