Edit: I'd like to preemptively clarify I don't have anything against these specific examples, nor am I trying to invalidate the work that went into creating them or any other examples of anti-AI fonts. This post is meant to critique the idea itself. I'm not trying to put-down anyone here!
I think this is a good perspective but...
AI systems are never going to start getting dumber.
...hasn't this already happened many times???
13 Comments
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 24 pts · 4d
Yeah, this is a take of someone who apparently doesn't understand how they work, and believes that they actually are an intelligence rather than the overwrought way of simulating such that they actually are.
Salvo@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 4d
Garbage in. Garbage out. And when you start feeding output back in, you just end up with more concentrated garbage.
It is like the human centipede but in the shape of an ouroboros.
bignose@awful.systems · 15 pts · 4d
Emphatically agreed. The open web was already being closed down before the LLM hyperscalers; it is closing down even more rapidly, partly to defend against the LLM hyperscalers dunning every website with pointless scraping all the time.
If we respond by obfuscating the text on the web, we hurt ourselves enormously and still won't stop the LLM hyperscalers from ruining the web. It's a misguided, technical non-solution, for something that needs a political response.
WesternInfidels@feddit.online · 5 pts · 4d
I'm not sure what you've got in mind.
scruiser@awful.systems · 1 pts · 4d
Well, OpenAI and Anthropic have repeatedly degraded their service through unacknowledged quantization and/or dynamically swapping models on the user. /r/singularity has gotten sick of it to the point it is a meme. It is because they can't actually afford to offer quality SOTA models at the price point people will actually pay for them.
bignose@awful.systems · 3 pts · 4d
I mean, I guess it can be seen as technically true, because LLMs (the subset of AI they're clearly talking about here) already know exactly zero about reality or what's true. Can't know less than that.
Blaster_M@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
The principles...
"open source software, the code, by license, is free to use and modify and redistribute"
ai gobbles up open source code
"NO NOT LIKE THAT HOW DARE YOU
STEALCOPY WHAT IS FREE!"Which one is it? Open source is intended to prevent this very thing of privatizing information, but this is where we're all going now. It's the two guns at two targets scenario - save open source and ai prevention gets shot dead. Add ai prevention but then open source, freedom of information as a concept gets shot dead. You can't take both outcomes, because they are diametrically opposed, and the ones holding the guns are a lot faster at pulling the trigger than you.
supersquirrel@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 4d
It is very simple, you modify your open source software license to say
"“open source software, the code, by license, is free to use and modify and redistribute by humans NOT AI”
Then you use human beings and their connections within communities to enforce this social norm. This does not need to be 100% enforceable with some draconian authentication mechanism such as you suggest, it can be a culturally enforced rule that whenever someone blatantingly starts violating becomes a massive issue for them and throws a wrench in the rest of their connections by ruining community trust in them.
Also corporations owned by billionaires tearing through public information to build LLMs is NOT WITHIN the spirit of public use, rather it represents the obliteration of public spaces for private benefit...?
Blaster_M@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
It's not truly open source if you have a ...but not for x in the clause.
supersquirrel@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 4d
Why not? The definition of "open" is unescapably political, there is no neutral definition of open.
Blaster_M@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
It's the first step towards censorship. Once you're okay with this, you will be okay with the next restriction, and the next, and the next.... until you've arrived at the desired endpoint - everything is private and proprietary again.
supersquirrel@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 4d
You are imposing a slippery slope mechanism here without explaining how or why.
If the open source license of a particular project becomes too restrictive for people to tolerate, less people will use it, isn't that how the "free market" works?
If you don't believe in the ability of a "free market" to find the optimum solution... what do you believe in?
I think what is happening here is that you are ideologically bothered by the idea of a license that prohibits the use of a software by AI based on ethical reasons but you are not ideologically bothered by the idea of a license that prohibits the use of a software to create private profit based on ethical reasons... so you subconciously invoke a slippery slope to fearmonger about something you don't want and resolve the cognitive dissonance.
grue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
Because words have meanings and organizations like the Open Source Initiative and the Free Software Foundation, who control the definitions of terms of art like "Open Source" and "Free Software," have made it very very clear what the definition is and that it does not include the types of restrictions you propose.
You're right that "Open Source" (or better yet, "Free Software") is inherently political, but it is entirely ideologically opposed to what you apparently want.
To be clear: I don't like this big-tech AI shit any more than you do. But trying to pervert the definition of Open Source into something it's not is not the way to fight it.