Post AbRbLH6QJKfeYWkR3A by shwars@mastodon.ml
(DIR) More posts by shwars@mastodon.ml
(DIR) Post #AbOttoQg7niDSmxcxs by drq@mastodon.ml
2023-11-02T15:49:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
AI can't be truly personal (and, in most of the ways, *be* a person - which is the expectation of the true AI) unless it's free and open-source.If it isn't, it's either just a conveyor belt product or a Trojan horse/sleeper agent, or both.
(DIR) Post #AbOu6NwVud2t56qYEq by velociraptor@mastodon.ml
2023-11-02T15:52:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@drq as for me, I think that mostly the second.
(DIR) Post #AbPYhriSAwBEIohGDI by shwars@mastodon.ml
2023-11-02T23:27:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@drq I don't see why an artificial person cannot be closed-sourced. After all, real people do not expose their source code either.
(DIR) Post #AbPZFSSWaQ7XocGS4u by drq@mastodon.ml
2023-11-02T23:33:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@shwars A person should not be a "private good" in economic sense.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoodsIf it is, it doesn't have its own personality, or even a personality of a human that installed it on their computer: it's corporation's. And corporations are not people.At least, that's the way I see it.
(DIR) Post #AbPZr2wBvIIRfM42nw by shwars@mastodon.ml
2023-11-02T23:40:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@drq I consider issue of ownership and open/closed source be two different matters.
(DIR) Post #AbPaC4Q1bxNeLD2lhw by drq@mastodon.ml
2023-11-02T23:43:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@shwars Well, I don't.FOSS is about ownership. Once you have the code, it's yours. It's basically a model of public software ownership.That's why GPL is a "General Public" license. You relegate your rights to own the product to the general public. And then you don't own it anymore - at least to the same extent you own a proprietary program. Your ownership is shared.
(DIR) Post #AbRa6RWx9rCsbEWLzc by shwars@mastodon.ml
2023-11-03T22:52:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@drq you don't truly own GPL program, because GPL licence comes with lots if limitations that limit your rights. In a sense, no-one truly owns it, not the original creator, not you. But that is the case with GPL. Other licenses are different
(DIR) Post #AbRaaI5eoyCk0azBvk by drq@mastodon.ml
2023-11-03T22:57:37Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@shwars Eh... "Lots" is too big a word. There's basically only one limitation:Don't change the license, a free program should stay free.That's it. And it's a fair limitation, IMO. It's just a prevention of the tolerance paradox, where if you let anybody do anything, you lose all your freedoms pretty fast, exactly because anybody can do anything, including restricting others' freedoms.This principle excludes this situation, which is great.
(DIR) Post #AbRbLH6QJKfeYWkR3A by shwars@mastodon.ml
2023-11-03T23:06:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@drq it seems often like a fair requirement, but there are many cases when it does not work. Suppose I want to build a system that checks student programs for plagiarism a d uses some heuristics. It makes sense to keep it closed-source in order to prevent system abuse, and if I want to do so - I cannot use any GPL libraries in my code. If this is the case, I would not claim that I own those libraries.
(DIR) Post #AbRbV0ljtT0mnHiRfM by drq@mastodon.ml
2023-11-03T23:07:52Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@shwars If the security of your system is based on the obscurity of your algorithm, then it's a bad system. Rethink your approach.
(DIR) Post #AbRcUO5ToKfOmNDRCa by frssoft@udongein.xyz
2023-11-03T23:18:52.953878Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@drq Free community pentesters for free software :3Ideally for test on prod, but for corpo companies maybe not (because their closed nature by default) //sorry for my bad english@shwars