@conservancy

There is less said on the BitKeepering of project tooling wrt process; the difference between toleration, blessing (i.e. tutorials) and requiring; the use of these tools to do reviews themselves; and the nature of using them for social interactions in exchanges, and a special treatment for english-washing for people embarrassed by their English proficiency. And obviously reputational harms.

But it's a step in clarity on the SFC's position. If a touch narrow for me personally.

@conservancy LOL WTF NOPE.

"FOSS projects should not shun contributors who choose to use LLM-gen-AI systems."

🤡

@dalias @conservancy kinda stopped reading after

“There are many intersecting ethical and moral issues regarding these systems, many of which are not currently fully understood.”

They are well understood and visible.

Yeah. The most generous reading would be that they mean "don't bully people or act like a jerk, just gently close their contribution and invite them to contribute in other ways"

Though I did also read it the other way too.

As for "are not currently fully understood" this is code for "we can't say what they are without offending some of our projects" a diplomatic retreat from having a position or making a conclusion.

@rotnroll666 @dalias @conservancy

@conservancy I'm going to state this very clearly:

Projects/communities have an absolute right to exclude people whose behaviors they deem unethical, unsafe, or hostile from participation.

And deeming LLM-gen-AI use as unethical is a completely reasonable position.

@doctormo @dalias @conservancy 👀 indeed.

The rest is not so bad tbf.

@conservancy LLMs are fundamentally incompatible with free software. This should be your entire policy statement.

@dalias @conservancy I still remember the exchange you had with that UX guy that criticized Fedi for not gaining traction, and then questioned *your* *personal* power to judge if something is right or wrong. These people cannot envision a world in which a community coalesces around a limit they deem important, and fully rejects something. They don't respect agency, unless it's a corporation's, in which case they just let it do whatever they want, kind of an extension of the "they must be right if they got all that moneu and power" kind of thinking.

@dalias @conservancy I'm all for shunning such "contributors" even harder. And ridiculing, there should probably also be some ridiculing.

@conservancy there can be no FOSS that includes LLM output (from any of the models currently on offer nor their successors)

@ticho @dalias @conservancy Fingerpointing.

@jens @dalias @conservancy I was thinking more something along the lines of The Simpsons' Nelson Muntz, but yours works too.

@azonenberg

On the contrary - if the indications hold that the output from LLMs are not copyrightable that means that LLM produced software has the equivalence of the Creative Commons Zero license, e.g. public domain.

That's how I started releasing software I wrote back in the 80s and I most definitely consider that to have been free software.

@conservancy

@dalias @conservancy I do understand your point that the way LLMs were sourced and their power dynamics are at least problematic. Still there might come a time when we all will struggle to identify LLM code. This is the point where bad code, written by humans, might be confused with LLM code and real humans get blamed for using LLMs. I think realistically it well be more helpful to disallow or discourage huge PRs and bad code. I am not happy about that but it seems more realistic to me.

@chris @conservancy Um, fuck no. Just because we can't 100% reliably identify hostile and unethical behavior doesn't mean we just say "doing that is fine". The statement of values is the point. If there are shitty people who get a kick out of violating our consent, they will demonstrate themselves that in other ways too, and we will remove them.

@dalias @conservancy Don't misunderstand me. I don't have anything against disallowing AI in your project.I just think that it might be like fighting windmills. I am fairly certain that I can create an LLM assisted PR that you will not be able to detect because I can actually write good code.

I just think it's sad if we started mistrusting each other over LLMs. It's okay to ban commits clearly marked as LLM generated. If not I'd rather assume it's a human.

@chris @conservancy That sounds like a threat and why I won't trust you to make any PR at all.

It represents a profound misunderstanding of trust and consent.

Do you not understand that?

@chris @dalias @conservancy so (1) that's you refusing to respect boundaries, but (2) out in the real world, AI bros *never shut up* about their AI coding

@dalias @conservancy I'm sorry if this came out as a threat. It was not meant as such. What I mean is that I'm confident that I could and that leaves me to believe that a lot of other people might as well. At that point you get to a cat and mouse game where some innocent people might get caught in the crossfire. If there was a surefire way for you to block LLM code I'd support that even. More power to you. What I fear is that we all will just be ever more angry, frustrated and distrustful.

@chris @conservancy What I mean is that the way of thinking is inherently gross. It's the same mindset as "I bet I could slip off the condom without them noticing". If someone is using this line of reasoning, I am going to deem them unsafe and untrustworthy, and it's going to be nearly impossible to undo that perception.

@dalias @conservancy I am sorry but this goes too far. I am honestly shocked by this analogy. Pushing a discussion about ethics in open source in this direction is just tasteless and over the top.

@chris @dalias @conservancy dude, literally you started it

@conservancy

1 and 2 are good, and it's good they are first.

3 reeks of false equivalence and doesn't argue against any of the very compelling arguments in "Contributor Poker and AI". Cf. https://kristoff.it/blog/contributor-poker-and-ai/. And it ignores the moral axis of the argument, which is often paired with false equivalence to reach the conclusion "good must tolerate evil" which is absurd.

4 seems nice in theory, but again see "Contributor Poker". We can wish people be intentional, but these systems inherently make drive-by contributions possible. It feels like you are trying to argue this is a neutral technology with respect to contributions which is absurd. The spam machine makes spam.

Agree on 5.

6 sure, ok, see 4. Same for 7.

8 seems weak and poorly argued. If legal issues are unresolved, then this implies more caution should be used. You can say "avoid jumping to conclusions" but ultimately we need to make decisions about how to act now, as this is happening now.

RE: https://social.coop/@cwebber/116771184567572781

@conservancy 9 seems irrelevant. Those with power will take what they want, those without power will be taken from.

10, yeah, I still think it's important to take the stance too. I like the idea of copyleft. The moral obligation of what we owe to each other. Taking care of and giving back to the commons.

11, Feckless and ignorant.

12, Waste of time. Garden or actually make something useful instead of wasting time on the gambling spam machine.

13 is a pointless charm against evil. Like throwing salt over your shoulder. You don't just get to say "I'm going to be immune to propaganda or influence or bias". It takes constant, active effort, and STILL FAILS. See what happened with this comic: https://tech.lgbt/@cwebber@social.coop/116771185279004637

14 is like 13, also feckless. 14 summarizes the complete lack of integrity and leadership and willingness to tackle the actual problems which are the social, ethical, and moral ones, not the technological ones.

RT: https://social.coop/users/cwebber/statuses/116771184567572781

@conservancy All in all, this reads like someone who's trying not to upset anyone, rather than understanding the moral imperative and taking a firm stance.

It's shameful and embarrassing, honestly, and I hope one day whoever thought this fit to publish understands why.

@glitchcake @conservancy is it by SFC's previous slop peddler, who got pushback on the fedi then tried to steer people to crime scene 2 (under his control) if they wanted answers from him in writing for his written text?

@dalias @conservancy @wyatt honestly define "shun" tbh, because according to ai bros having a policy of lije " please dont use this here " is shunning them, when typically that is not what that would mean, im inclined more to think along the lines of .. "your bad for using this" or .. "if you use this then your ..." when i hear that

.. which is something else entirely

@wyatt @conservancy @Li I will "shun" them in the sense of recommending against using (especially depending on) other projects by them or in which they are heavily involved, speaking publicly about/against their attempts to normalize "AI" use, etc.

I will deem hall-of-shame/shitlists of slop coders as legitimate and non-abusive, and will happily share them.

If someone thinks any of this is "poor conduct"/a violation of their principles of how we should engage with "AI"/a violation of their code of conduct, they can get fucked.

@Li @dalias @wyatt @conservancy +1

@wyatt @conservancy @Li OTOH if someone is *privately* using "AI" tools for non-codegen purposes, not pushing others to engage with any of that, and being exceedingly cautious to disclose anything that might be unacceptable or tainting to any projects they engage with, I'm not going to shame them.

I'm going to thank them for being decent and respecting our consent even if I deem the tools they're using unethical and harmful.

@davidgerard @conservancy This is what I mean. Everyone is angry already. I never opened an LLM coded PR and I wouldn't do it if it was forbidden. I have no AI subscriptions and I wouldn't get one. But if I could others could do it as well and then all the "no AI here" stuff is as effective as putting a "no peeing on the lawn" sign in front of a dog. You can either be angry and distrustful or do something more useful with your time.

@conservancy calling this a "new era" is highly disingenuous. This era will be extremely short, it'll only last until the funding runs out.

@gabrielesvelto @conservancy 👆 So much this. If it weren't so destructive to our sense of community, this kind of shit would just be laughable. 🤡 Embracing the wrong side right at the time the bubble is already in the middle of popping.

@gabrielesvelto @conservancy Imagine if the Conservancy were rushing to adopt NFTs in 2022. 🤡

@gabrielesvelto @conservancy I cringed when I started reading that post for that reason.

@azonenberg what are your arguments for that opinion?

There is popular Free Software with LLM-generated code, like Linux and systemd. They don't become closed-source or explode, so your statement is not obviously true.

Would it change your opinion when an LLM would be ethically trained and more reliable?

@conservancy

@chris @dalias
if you can't tell whether some patch or pull request is LLM generated, you can ask the author.

i can't tell, from the looks of it, whether a burger is vegan. so i ask the kitchen.

the solution to not being able to tell is to ask, not to eat the maybe horse or dog meat burger, or merge possibly-vibed slop.

@pelle @chris @dalias

Chris seriously is like "well people can lie so why bother".

Unbelievable how this shit has completely broken people's understanding of boundaries, holding values/principles and basic social contracts.

@TheEntity @pelle @chris @dalias No, I think a large amount of people don't understand (or understand but don't respect, which is the same) boundaries, principles and basic social contracts, and haven't for a long time; and are in the FOSS business because it's a job. And the obvious breach of all the social contracts by the LLM corporations, without consequences, has made these people believe that it was a socially acceptable thing, so now they're letting it all hang out.

Crises do not change people. They reveal them.

@conservancy

s/volumous/voluminous/ , I think?

Good stance. I appreciate the focus on encouraging newcomers rather than shaming them for the path by which they approached. Still, I think this stance is rather more tolerant of a corrosive set of businesses than is wise; time will tell.

@chris @dalias @conservancy unfortunately…

I just think it's sad if we started mistrusting each other over LLMs

… we’ve been there for 2+ years already. For code, for writing, for images. And it’s really sad that that has become a necessity, but I fully blame the fashtech bros.

I'd rather assume it's a human

I’d like to be able to do that, but these days, you cannot.

@chris @dalias
this is just the same dipshit genx playbook where people start rambling about witch hunts and theoreticals and then run straight to "well if I'm going to be under scrutiny for possibly doing something wrong I'm just gonna do it"
@conservancy

@mancube @chris @dalias @conservancy oy, leave GenX out of that

@chris @dalias @conservancy I'm absolutely certain that you can create a PR using stolen proprietary code that open source maintainers will not be able to detect. That doesn't mean open source projects should welcome stolen proprietary code.

@dalias @conservancy I always get „But your licence allows it. Change your licence!“ As if any AI tool cared. As if the right licence existed. As if any normal human being were able to create their own custom-made licence.

@jlink @dalias @conservancy it actually doesn’t allow that, fun thing. Not that they care.

@jlink @conservancy No FOSS licenses except 0BSD and similarly minimal ones allow it. The vast majority have requirements to preserve copyright notice & attribution, which fundamentally can't be done when incorporating scraped code into LLMs.

@dalias @conservancy AFAIK that holds for copyright aspects but not usage of a tool / library. And even with copyright some argue that „training“ is not restricted because fair use.

@jlink @dalias @conservancy the excuse used for “training” is the Text and Data Mining exception to copyright law.

Which demands that an explicit machine-readable opt-out (sad and bad as that is) is honoured, which the fashbros don’t.

Which is for “automatisierte Analyse von einzelnen oder mehreren digitalen oder digitalisierten Werken, um daraus Informationen insbesondere über Muster, Trends und Korrelationen zu gewinnen” and decidedly not “generative AI” (regurgitative). It does not even cover distribution of a model so made.

The second you use a model for regurgitating instead of analysis, the TDM exception you might have been under is null and void.

@jlink @conservancy Regardless of whether a compromised court system in some jurisdiction lets that by, the license does not *allow* it. It's a violation of the authors' consent and is not us "failing to use the right license".

@dalias @jlink @conservancy yeah, that (consent) too

@wouter @dalias @conservancy you’ve seen how some people (I’m not going to name them here, even if most of the related mailing list discussion is public) react. They’ll never accept that.

@wouter @dalias @conservancy yes, not at first sight = allow for honest mistakes, educate them, help them get into the thing for real if they have an actual interest. Definitely.

But people who knowingly defy that?

@dalias
more addled genx nonsense from the same people who want to tell you it's wrong to close the doors to your community to sex pests, fascists, and other creeps
@conservancy

@mancube @dalias @conservancy oy, leave GenX out of that!

@dalias @wyatt @conservancy im not sure what i actually think about this, so i wont comment much on this

i was just pointing out theres two completey different meanings here;

i would like to ig mention that having a list of "bad coders" has an issue of making it difficult to be accepted back if they stop using them.. which is presumably what you would want them to do .. (this is an issue with blocklists in general though.. tbh)

im not sure what i think of it outside of acknowleding a single issue with some of this though

@Li @wyatt @conservancy A lot of people want to be accepted back without atonement.

If you've burned a bunch of commons by incorporating LLM slop, and now you stopped doing that..? OK, now what? Are you going to fork the last-good versions of the stuff you burned, make real fixes for all the bugs they're known to have, and get them back up to a state where they're usable as the mainline without risking users safety/security?

Or do you just want us to forget all the harm you did and take you at your word that you're not going to do harm again?

@wouter @conservancy I don't think that's the point, or if it is, they're dangerously unclear about the point in a way that will be weaponized by AI pushers.

"Don't shun" does not mean "don't immediately shun without giving them a chance to correct their behavior". Even if it did, that's a form of "assume good intent", which is *always* an abuse-enabling clause in CoC-like contexts.

@mirabilos @dalias @conservancy Morally I'm fully on your side. I just don't think that eventually highest jurisdictation (anywhere in the Western world) will decide against AI tech.

@conservancy @jlink @dalias doesn’t make it right, or even legal

@conservancy @dalias @jlink (something can be both illegal and not held in by a court at the same time; easiest way is too low value, possibly combined with lower court declining to act and the value is insufficient for higher court, even if recurring, BTST)

@mirabilos @conservancy @jlink And means whoever is using this shit is going to have some fun not being able to operate in the jurisdictions that don't bend to the AI bros. 😈

@dalias @mirabilos @conservancy @jlink

Umm... are there any of those? I even see European countries acting all over the moon over this crap. 🤦‍♂️

@conservancy @jlink @rl_dane @dalias I can imagine that, should these countries figure out a way to extract money from such companies, there suddenly might be some

… but not atm, no. Our current right-wing-barely-not-extremist government is likely to stick in the other fashs’ common cesspool.

@wouter @conservancy It doesn't matter what you or I think it means. It matters how AI pushers will weaponize it.

And in any case, shunning on first sight is well within a community's rights. Nobody is entitled to tell them they have to entertain and try to fix folks who very well might just be bots.

@wouter @conservancy This isn't about what you or I would personally rather do. It's about what is being pushed on projects as a norm for how they should handle a situation. And this is not something that should be pushed upon them. Whether they want to educate these people or immediately click the block button is entirely their business not ours or the Conservancy's business to tell them what to do.