10 ms·
> Yet, this shift made me re-evaluate the open source code publishing. Prior to that, I have been positive about free and open software, and considered this to
by kator 4mo ago
> Yet, this shift made me re-evaluate the open source code publishing. Prior to that, I have been positive about free and open software, and considered this to be the default mode for work such as kefir. I did not require any justifications from myself to publish something. Now, however, I feel more and more that the main beneficiaries of my unpaid work are companies scraping the internet to train large language models. Currently accepted status quo in this area goes against my own intentions in licensing this work under GNU GPLv3. Publication has ceased to be the "null hypothesis" for me, and requires explicit mental justification which I am not able to provide.
I feel this pain, one of my small donation driven sites has been destroyed by crawlers who just ignore robots.txt and burn the site into the ground.
Sort of jokingly I proposed an update to the "spam fax" law:
https://www.karlbunch.com/random/website-protection-act/ https://www.karlbunch.com/random/website-protection-act/
- jagged-chisel 4mo ago> The sender pays, not the receiver. You have a hole here. Your web server is sending the response and the bot is receiving. Fix that and … profit? :-)
- malwrar 4mo agoReally hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. I spend most of my time now building my own little software ark, and I aspire to no longer think of programming in the next few years. I feel like the creative economy in general will be unrecognizable in the near future, maybe nonexistent. I wonder what modes of collaboration on ideas might form in the next few years.
- irdc 4mo agoHere is what the purveyors of AI don't seem to realise. You can bend copyright law all you want in order to train your models on whatever you can grab, but in the absence of genuine protection of their creative work authors are simply not going to be publishing at all.
- dzhiurgis 4mo agoGreat. More work for AI then.
- egypturnash 4mo agoPeople who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. And fighting to be noticed in an unending torrent of slop.
- irdc 4mo agoWithout any material or immaterial benefits? And with one's work being ground up and turned into weights for the next version of the machine that's threatening one's employment?
- egypturnash 4mo agoI personally am sharing stuff because I want people to read my comics, and maybe join my crowdfunding campaigns. If I could put everyone pushing all this AI crap into a meat grinder, I would.
- lelanthran 4mo ago> People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. Those people who do that are too few and far between to make a difference. The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license. That license is how they specify what they want in return.
- 4mo ago
- account42 4mo agoThis is essentially the digital world transforming from a high trust society into a low trust one. Sad to see.
- Gormo 4mo agoTo whom would you attribute the greater part of that reduction in trust: the people using FOSS to train LLMs, or the people trying to block them?
- Xirdus 4mo agoPeople who break the social contract are the ones responsible for breaking the social contract, not the ones who take steps in response to social contract being broken.
- dlev_pika 4mo ago“No, no, what was she wearing?”
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Xirdus 4mo agoPeople who take steps in response to social contract being broken are the ones responsible for the steps they've taken, not the ones who break the social contract.
- Gormo 4mo agoSo the questions here are (a) is any generally accepted social contract actually being broken, and (b) if so, who are the ones who are breaking it?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- garaetjjte 4mo agoIncredibly rich to complain about LLM scraping with LLM generated article.