5 ms·

Seems incredibly reductive and luddite. I doubt it will ever achieve adoption and projects using it will be avoided. Not to mention that all you'd need to do i

Seems incredibly reductive and luddite. I doubt it will ever achieve adoption and projects using it will be avoided. Not to mention that all you'd need to do is get an LLM to rewrite said programs just enough to make it impossible to prove it used the program's source code.

GaryBluto 1y ago
Now I look further into it, a lot of the terms used are far too vague and it looks unenforceable anyway.
blamestross 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite If you want a preview of the next decade without changing how we are acting. agreed that this isn't the solution.
- Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
  Honestly, I am genuinely curious if there are some good books/articles about Luddite, although I don't think this is an apples to orange comparison, I am just willing to open up my view-point and to take counter arguments (to preferably sharpen my arguments in and of itselves) but as with all things, I can be wrong, I usually am. But I don't think thats the case just because of how I feel like there is something to be said about how AI itself really scraped the whole world without their right, nobody consented to it and in some places, the consent is straight up ignored even It wasn't as if the machines were looking at every piece of cloth generated by the worker pre revolution without/ignoring their consent. Like, there is a big difference but I personally don't even think that their view-point of resisting change should be criticised. I think its fair to resist change, since not all change is equal. Its okay to fight for what you believe in as long as you try to educate yourself about the other side's opinion and try to put it all logically without much* biases.
- cratermoon 1y ago
  Wikipedia's opening description is incredibly milquetoast: "opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns relating to worker pay and output quality".
fvdessen 1y ago
Hey, I'm the author of this post, in a sense I agree with you. I doubt it will ever be mass adopted, especially in this form, which is more a draft to spark discussion than a real license. I am not against AI, I use it every day, I find it extraordinarily useful. But I am also trying to look ahead at how the online world will look like 10 years from now, with AI vastly better than what we have now. It is already hard to connect online with people, as there is so much commercial pressure on every interaction, as the attention they create is worth a lot of money. This will probably become 100x worse as every company on the planet will have access to mass ai powered propaganda tools. Those already exist by the way. People make millions selling AI tiktok tools. I'm afraid at some point we'll be swamped by bots. 99% of the content online will be AI generated. It might even be of better quality than what we can produce. Would that be a win ? I'm not sure. I value the fact that I am interacting with humans. The protection we have against that, and the way it's looking to progress towards, is that we'll depend on authorities (official or commercial) to verify who's human or not. And thus we'll be dependent on those authorities to be able to interact. Banned from Facebook / X / etc ? No interaction for you, as no website will allow you to post content. Even as it is I had to gatekeep my blog comments behind a github account. This is not something I like. I think it's worth looking at alternative ways to protect our humanity in the online world, even if it means remaining in niches, as those niches have value, at least to me. This post and this license is one possible solution, hopefully there are more
- GaryBluto 1y ago
  >I'm afraid at some point we'll be swamped by bots. 99% of the content online will be AI generated. It might even be of better quality than what we can produce. Would that be a win ? I'm not sure. I value the fact that I am interacting with humans. I'm afraid that ship has sailed. >I think it's worth looking at alternative ways to protect our humanity in the online world, even if it means remaining in niches, as those niches have value, at least to me. This post and this license is one possible solution, hopefully there are more While I appreciate the sentiment, I think anybody willing to create armies of bots to pretend to be humans are unlikely to listen to a software license, nor operate within territories where the law would prosecute them.
tpmoney 1y ago
The whole license effectively limits using the software to hardware and software that existed prior to 2015, and only if you downloaded it from the original site in the original language (after all, an automated translation of the page or manual into your own language would almost certainly be using AI in the chain given that was one of the initial uses of LLMs). And if you downloaded it from some other site, you can't guarantee that site didn't use an AI model at some point in its creation or ongoing maintenance. It also assumes it can make some bright line distinction between "AI" code completion and "non-AI" code completion utilities. If your code completion algorithm uses the context of your current file and/or project to order the suggestions for completion, is that AI? Or does "AI" only mean "LLM based AI" (I notice a distinct lack of terms definitions in the license). If it only means "LLM" based, if some new model for modern AI is developed, is that OK since it's no longer an LLM? Can I use the output to train a "Diffusion" model? Probably not, but what makes a diffusion model more forbidden than feeding it into a procedural image generator? If I used the output of a HOPL licensed software to feed input into a climate simulation is that allowed even if the simulator is nothing more than a series of statistical weights and value based on observations coded into an automatic system that produces output with no human direction or supervision? If I am allowed, what is the line between a simulation model and an AI model? When do we cross over? I am constantly amazed at the bizzaro land I find myself in these days. Information wanted to be free, right up until it was the information that the "freedom fighter" was using to monetize their lifestyle I suppose. At least the GPL philosophy makes sense, "information wants to be free so if I give you my information you have to give me yours". The new "AI" world that we find ourselves in is the best opportunity we've had in a very long time to really have some public debate over copyright specifically, IP law in general and how it helps or hinders the advancement of humanity. But so much of the discussion is about trying to preserve the ancient system that until AI burst on to the scene, most people at least agreed needed some re-working. Forget "are we the baddies?", this is a "are we the RIAA?" moment for the computer geeks.

GaryBluto 1y ago

Now I look further into it, a lot of the terms used are far too vague and it looks unenforceable anyway.

blamestross 1y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite If you want a preview of the next decade without changing how we are acting. agreed that this isn't the solution.

Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
Honestly, I am genuinely curious if there are some good books/articles about Luddite, although I don't think this is an apples to orange comparison, I am just willing to open up my view-point and to take counter arguments (to preferably sharpen my arguments in and of itselves) but as with all things, I can be wrong, I usually am. But I don't think thats the case just because of how I feel like there is something to be said about how AI itself really scraped the whole world without their right, nobody consented to it and in some places, the consent is straight up ignored even It wasn't as if the machines were looking at every piece of cloth generated by the worker pre revolution without/ignoring their consent. Like, there is a big difference but I personally don't even think that their view-point of resisting change should be criticised. I think its fair to resist change, since not all change is equal. Its okay to fight for what you believe in as long as you try to educate yourself about the other side's opinion and try to put it all logically without much* biases.
cratermoon 1y ago
Wikipedia's opening description is incredibly milquetoast: "opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns relating to worker pay and output quality".

fvdessen 1y ago

Hey, I'm the author of this post, in a sense I agree with you. I doubt it will ever be mass adopted, especially in this form, which is more a draft to spark discussion than a real license. I am not against AI, I use it every day, I find it extraordinarily useful. But I am also trying to look ahead at how the online world will look like 10 years from now, with AI vastly better than what we have now. It is already hard to connect online with people, as there is so much commercial pressure on every interaction, as the attention they create is worth a lot of money. This will probably become 100x worse as every company on the planet will have access to mass ai powered propaganda tools. Those already exist by the way. People make millions selling AI tiktok tools. I'm afraid at some point we'll be swamped by bots. 99% of the content online will be AI generated. It might even be of better quality than what we can produce. Would that be a win ? I'm not sure. I value the fact that I am interacting with humans. The protection we have against that, and the way it's looking to progress towards, is that we'll depend on authorities (official or commercial) to verify who's human or not. And thus we'll be dependent on those authorities to be able to interact. Banned from Facebook / X / etc ? No interaction for you, as no website will allow you to post content. Even as it is I had to gatekeep my blog comments behind a github account. This is not something I like. I think it's worth looking at alternative ways to protect our humanity in the online world, even if it means remaining in niches, as those niches have value, at least to me. This post and this license is one possible solution, hopefully there are more

GaryBluto 1y ago
>I'm afraid at some point we'll be swamped by bots. 99% of the content online will be AI generated. It might even be of better quality than what we can produce. Would that be a win ? I'm not sure. I value the fact that I am interacting with humans. I'm afraid that ship has sailed. >I think it's worth looking at alternative ways to protect our humanity in the online world, even if it means remaining in niches, as those niches have value, at least to me. This post and this license is one possible solution, hopefully there are more While I appreciate the sentiment, I think anybody willing to create armies of bots to pretend to be humans are unlikely to listen to a software license, nor operate within territories where the law would prosecute them.

tpmoney 1y ago

The whole license effectively limits using the software to hardware and software that existed prior to 2015, and only if you downloaded it from the original site in the original language (after all, an automated translation of the page or manual into your own language would almost certainly be using AI in the chain given that was one of the initial uses of LLMs). And if you downloaded it from some other site, you can't guarantee that site didn't use an AI model at some point in its creation or ongoing maintenance. It also assumes it can make some bright line distinction between "AI" code completion and "non-AI" code completion utilities. If your code completion algorithm uses the context of your current file and/or project to order the suggestions for completion, is that AI? Or does "AI" only mean "LLM based AI" (I notice a distinct lack of terms definitions in the license). If it only means "LLM" based, if some new model for modern AI is developed, is that OK since it's no longer an LLM? Can I use the output to train a "Diffusion" model? Probably not, but what makes a diffusion model more forbidden than feeding it into a procedural image generator? If I used the output of a HOPL licensed software to feed input into a climate simulation is that allowed even if the simulator is nothing more than a series of statistical weights and value based on observations coded into an automatic system that produces output with no human direction or supervision? If I am allowed, what is the line between a simulation model and an AI model? When do we cross over? I am constantly amazed at the bizzaro land I find myself in these days. Information wanted to be free, right up until it was the information that the "freedom fighter" was using to monetize their lifestyle I suppose. At least the GPL philosophy makes sense, "information wants to be free so if I give you my information you have to give me yours". The new "AI" world that we find ourselves in is the best opportunity we've had in a very long time to really have some public debate over copyright specifically, IP law in general and how it helps or hinders the advancement of humanity. But so much of the discussion is about trying to preserve the ancient system that until AI burst on to the scene, most people at least agreed needed some re-working. Forget "are we the baddies?", this is a "are we the RIAA?" moment for the computer geeks.