6 ms·

PoW might not work for long, but Anubis is very nice: https://anubis.techaro.lol/ https://anubis.techaro.lol/ That said ... putting part of your soul into mach

by pas 1y ago

PoW might not work for long, but Anubis is very nice: https://anubis.techaro.lol/ https://anubis.techaro.lol/ That said ... putting part of your soul into machine format so you can put it on on the big shared machine using your personal machine and expecting that only other really truly quintessentially proper personal machines receive it and those soulless other machines don't ... is strange. ... If people want a walled garden (and yeah, sure, I sometimes want one too) then let's do that! Since it must allow authors to set certain conditions, and require users to pay into the maintenance costs (to understand that they are not the product) it should be called OpenFreeBook just to match the current post-truth vibe.

pyrale 1y ago
I’m not sure that the issue is just a technical distinction between humans and bots. Rather it’s about promoting a web serving human-human interactions, rather than one that exists only to be harvested, and where humans mostly speak to bots. It is also about not wanting a future where the bot owners get extreme influence and power. Especially the ones with mid-century middle-europe political opinions.
- pas 1y ago
  I appreciate the intents, needs, concerns of my fellow humans, but it seems they are fundamentally unaware of the sociotechnological limitations of Web 1.0. I also would like to see many of these bot owners to radically reevaluate their priorities (toward more giving back - and not just to shareholders).
reactordev 1y ago
Security through obscurity is no security at all…
- pas 1y ago
  it's not security, it's an economic disincentive, it's basically throttling.
workethics 1y ago
> That said ... putting part of your soul into machine format so you can put it on on the big shared machine using your personal machine and expecting that only other really truly quintessentially proper personal machines receive it and those soulless other machines don't ... is strange. That's a mischaracterization of most people want. When I put out a bowl of candy for Halloween I'm fine with EVERYONE taking some candy. But these companies are the equivalent of the asshole that dumps the whole bowl into their bag.
- lblume 1y ago
  > these companies are the equivalent of the asshole that dumps the whole bowl into their bag In most cases, they aren't? You can still access a website that is being crawled for the purpose of training LLMs. Sure, DOS exists, but seems to not be as much of a problem as to cause widespread outage of websites.
  - rangerelf 1y ago
    A better analogy is that LLM crawlers are candy store workers going through the houses grabbing free candy and then selling it in their own shop. Scalpers. Knowledge scalpers.
    - horsawlarway 1y ago
      Except nothing is actually taken. It's copied. If your goal in publishing the site is to drive eyeballs to it for ad revenue... then you probably care. If your goal in publishing the site is just to let people know a thing you found or learned... that goal is still getting accomplished. For me... I'm not in it for the fame or money, I'm fine with it.
      - CJefferson 1y ago
        It's absolutely fine for you to be fine with it. What is nonsense is how copyright laws have been so strict, and suddenly AI companies can just ignore everyone's wishes.

by pas 1y ago

pyrale 1y ago

I’m not sure that the issue is just a technical distinction between humans and bots. Rather it’s about promoting a web serving human-human interactions, rather than one that exists only to be harvested, and where humans mostly speak to bots. It is also about not wanting a future where the bot owners get extreme influence and power. Especially the ones with mid-century middle-europe political opinions.

pas 1y ago
I appreciate the intents, needs, concerns of my fellow humans, but it seems they are fundamentally unaware of the sociotechnological limitations of Web 1.0. I also would like to see many of these bot owners to radically reevaluate their priorities (toward more giving back - and not just to shareholders).

reactordev 1y ago

Security through obscurity is no security at all…

pas 1y ago
it's not security, it's an economic disincentive, it's basically throttling.

workethics 1y ago

> That said ... putting part of your soul into machine format so you can put it on on the big shared machine using your personal machine and expecting that only other really truly quintessentially proper personal machines receive it and those soulless other machines don't ... is strange. That's a mischaracterization of most people want. When I put out a bowl of candy for Halloween I'm fine with EVERYONE taking some candy. But these companies are the equivalent of the asshole that dumps the whole bowl into their bag.

lblume 1y ago
> these companies are the equivalent of the asshole that dumps the whole bowl into their bag In most cases, they aren't? You can still access a website that is being crawled for the purpose of training LLMs. Sure, DOS exists, but seems to not be as much of a problem as to cause widespread outage of websites.
- rangerelf 1y ago
  A better analogy is that LLM crawlers are candy store workers going through the houses grabbing free candy and then selling it in their own shop. Scalpers. Knowledge scalpers.
  - horsawlarway 1y ago
    Except nothing is actually taken. It's copied. If your goal in publishing the site is to drive eyeballs to it for ad revenue... then you probably care. If your goal in publishing the site is just to let people know a thing you found or learned... that goal is still getting accomplished. For me... I'm not in it for the fame or money, I'm fine with it.
    - CJefferson 1y ago
      It's absolutely fine for you to be fine with it. What is nonsense is how copyright laws have been so strict, and suddenly AI companies can just ignore everyone's wishes.