kinda confused because this seems like a pro-"AI" license https://discuss.systems/@dev/113299269159600892
-
@[email protected] I like what their aim is buuut
If you use AI to learn, understand, summarize or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material or the trained model.
the "AI" models that are proprietary and used in proprietary systems with no oversight are the ones I fear the most. -
-
@[email protected] I just saw that! I'm not a lawyer but that definitely feels like it could be instantly used for precisely the worst case scenario "AI" usages.
-
d@nny "disc@" mc²replied to d@nny "disc@" mc² last edited by
@aud i like dev but he does work for microsoft and he should take it upon himself to be more cognizant of these distinctions that's what i would do when i advocated internally against the twitter autocropper
-
@[email protected] It's interesting, at least, to see someone working for Microsoft even publicly suggest the idea of a license that can't be used for open-season ML model training, assuming it's in good faith (which, seems to be). When I was there people were literally calling Bender, et al's work on stochastic parrots "outdated", if that tells you anything.
People definitely felt uncomfortable about the "AI" shit but they didn't dare mention it outside of private comms. -
@aud re "outdated" see the analogous legal framing of existing regs as "outdated" https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/113336488582299874
-
d@nny "disc@" mc²replied to d@nny "disc@" mc² last edited by
@aud they call it outdated to denigrate it because their technology is no match for our ancient magicks
-
@[email protected] yep. Spot on.
I feel like with the legal stuff companies tend to exploit the general population's perception/understanding of the law against them and say "oh no, our lawyers totally say this is okay/isn't okay/works/doesn't work" to influence the things we say outside of the work environment. "Oh, well, the company lawyers said this law doesn't work and so we need blah blah blah". -
d@nny "disc@" mc²replied to Asta [AMP] last edited by
@aud sidenote it's so incredibly fucking funny that the OSI defn of "open source" "AI" does not require open data. you had literally one fucking job dude
-
Asta [AMP]replied to d@nny "disc@" mc² last edited by [email protected]
@[email protected] wait, they really define it that way? as in, the data doesn't need to be... what the fuck.
-
@[email protected] good ol self-regulatory capture.
-
Asta [AMP]replied to d@nny "disc@" mc² last edited by
@[email protected] I'm gonna write a license that's just GPL or whatever but it also says that if you're a corporation you legally have to go onto the top 25 most popular forms of communication and say your company sucks and is a garbage sucking fucko and provide a link to a video of your CEO saying it.
-
@[email protected] go ahead, incorporate this into your "supply chain". do it.
-
d@nny "disc@" mc²replied to Asta [AMP] last edited by
@aud to add insult to injury they even couch it in the language used in copyleft licensing you cannot convince me this isn't an op https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/113007085938489376
-
Asta [AMP]replied to d@nny "disc@" mc² last edited by
@[email protected] oh jesus, yeah, I totally forgot about this. Yeah. "after long deliberation and co-design sessions" == "the industry wanted this goal and it took us a while to figure out how to sell it"
