Well for once I don't think training a model should be considered fair use. At the time when people released their art and writings under such a license there wasn't the threat of that resulting in them potentially losing their job. I for example stopped contributing to open source completely because of that threat. The reason why I consider training a model on these things immoral is that millions of people put in the effort of creating code or art in various forms and some rich assholes come along scrape it all and sell it back to us while creating ungodly amounts of pollution. It really doesn't matter to me that a few bootlickers run some inferior models on their own system. They are legitimising AI by using it and are encouraging others to also do so. Meanwhile the damage is already done with artists being now accused of publishing AI-generated images because they wanted to do a good thing by releasing their art online for free and the models happily imitating their style.
I don't know why you are talking about privacy. Expectation of privacy is unrelated to copyright. Anyway the point I am making is that a license allowing something doesn't make it moral. Sure, the law allows someone to train their slop generator on my code but I can still think they are an unethical piece of shit for doing so. The same goes for the people who then use such a model. Which is also why I don't feel bad about techbros crying about how they are bullied online for using AI.
A license may allow something but that doesn't make it ethical to do. At the time these licenses where written the wholesale pillaging of the commons by AI companies wasn't a thing. For that reason I don't think it matters what license anything was published under. Unless you where given permission by the author its not OK to train your model on it.
I consider Open Weights models only open in name, the training data is almost never released. As such it is just an attempt at open washing. Its like releasing some executable files and calling that Open Binaries.
Yes, you are acting unethical. Your self-hosted model is neither open nor was it trained with consent. Using them is just as unethical as using the models from OpenAI.
Well, I wouldn't call myself new to hosting, I used nginx before but switched because Caddy makes configuring HTTPS for my reverse proxy very convenient. I use it with this module which handles the ACME DNS challenge for creating and updating letsencrypt certificates for my internal domains.
If anyone ever wondered why I am constantly angry about AI its shit like this...
I was looking at options for securing a few services hosted behind a caddy reverse proxy and found a project with the very serious and official sounding name 'caddy-security'. To get started I tried to find some proper documentation for it and immediately found this announcement. In future, instead of a proper documentation you will get a bunch of files in the repos .codex/skills directory. These, according to the developer, help 'both humans and AI agents work with the codebase'. I don't know how this is supposed to help me because the files aren't linked to each other and are anything but proper documentation, but I guess they want me to point a slop agent at them and have it generate some security configuration for me.
Unfortunately, that isn't entirely wrong. There is always the few riders that think the pedestrian zone in the inner city is the perfect place to start their training session.
It happens when you post here, you don't even have to interact with their community. Instead they come here, by their own volition, to be angry about us not liking AI and they then decide to ban every name they come across. This community existing is insult enough for them. Thankfully they self-isolate for the most part.
Well for once I don't think training a model should be considered fair use. At the time when people released their art and writings under such a license there wasn't the threat of that resulting in them potentially losing their job. I for example stopped contributing to open source completely because of that threat. The reason why I consider training a model on these things immoral is that millions of people put in the effort of creating code or art in various forms and some rich assholes come along scrape it all and sell it back to us while creating ungodly amounts of pollution. It really doesn't matter to me that a few bootlickers run some inferior models on their own system. They are legitimising AI by using it and are encouraging others to also do so. Meanwhile the damage is already done with artists being now accused of publishing AI-generated images because they wanted to do a good thing by releasing their art online for free and the models happily imitating their style.
"You just don't understand it" was also what the crypto people always told me when I called their obvious ponzi scheme a ponzi scheme.
I don't know why you are talking about privacy. Expectation of privacy is unrelated to copyright. Anyway the point I am making is that a license allowing something doesn't make it moral. Sure, the law allows someone to train their slop generator on my code but I can still think they are an unethical piece of shit for doing so. The same goes for the people who then use such a model. Which is also why I don't feel bad about techbros crying about how they are bullied online for using AI.
A license may allow something but that doesn't make it ethical to do. At the time these licenses where written the wholesale pillaging of the commons by AI companies wasn't a thing. For that reason I don't think it matters what license anything was published under. Unless you where given permission by the author its not OK to train your model on it.
I consider Open Weights models only open in name, the training data is almost never released. As such it is just an attempt at open washing. Its like releasing some executable files and calling that Open Binaries.
Yes, you are acting unethical. Your self-hosted model is neither open nor was it trained with consent. Using them is just as unethical as using the models from OpenAI.
Well, I wouldn't call myself new to hosting, I used nginx before but switched because Caddy makes configuring HTTPS for my reverse proxy very convenient. I use it with this module which handles the ACME DNS challenge for creating and updating letsencrypt certificates for my internal domains.
If anyone ever wondered why I am constantly angry about AI its shit like this...
I was looking at options for securing a few services hosted behind a caddy reverse proxy and found a project with the very serious and official sounding name 'caddy-security'. To get started I tried to find some proper documentation for it and immediately found this announcement. In future, instead of a proper documentation you will get a bunch of files in the repos
.codex/skillsdirectory. These, according to the developer, help 'both humans and AI agents work with the codebase'. I don't know how this is supposed to help me because the files aren't linked to each other and are anything but proper documentation, but I guess they want me to point a slop agent at them and have it generate some security configuration for me.Unfortunately, that isn't entirely wrong. There is always the few riders that think the pedestrian zone in the inner city is the perfect place to start their training session.
"Making it easier to avoid slop projects on Github is literally like phrenology."
Isn't that exactly what sardonicism is? I would count it as form of humour even if its bitter and full of negativity.
The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.
I like it, its been my main system for the last 2 years. For my use case (software development & some gaming) it works very well.
Fedora Immutable Desktop users when Arch and Debian users fight about whose system is more stable. (I use Fedora Kinoite btw)
Yes, but its not a problem. Usually the mod just bans you from their personal AI dumping ground.
It happens when you post here, you don't even have to interact with their community. Instead they come here, by their own volition, to be angry about us not liking AI and they then decide to ban every name they come across. This community existing is insult enough for them. Thankfully they self-isolate for the most part.
Looks like Randall has been playing some Poly Bridge.
Oh good... just what I wanted.
Qualitätsjournalismus aus dem Hause Heise. Da kann ich ja gleich die Schwurbler Telegrammgruppe lesen.
I think its hilarious that some people seem to actually take this science fiction variation on Pascal's wager seriously.
Already did that some time ago but I am still in the dataset.