Posts by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
(DIR) Post #B4xsXWLEatG9JivG3k by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @navi Doesn't seem to be in sudo-rs, but, none of the plugin functionality is - sudo-rs is (intntionally, I think) much less flexibile than traditional sudo. Like - in non-rs sudo, the 'sudoers' file & related are themselves a 'policy plugin'. where sudo-rs seems to have gone with hard-coding it. sudo-rs has mentions in their readme that they don't intend to implement all of sudo's features, so, this seems to be ommitted by choice, since it's not heavily utilized on modern systems.
(DIR) Post #B5WaUr9RljYsLYaPiK by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
... is "No slop no cops no feds no fash"sufficient as a contributor policy on it's own?
(DIR) Post #B5WaUrNcv0u73XDjoe by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn For those who are acting in good faith, and willing to contribute in healthy ways - yes, it's absolutely worth while to talk to them, and try to get them to contribute in good ways. If you can, have time, are not drowning in so much slop that you can't tell who means well and who just needs to be blocked/banned, etc. - integrating people into the community is a lot of work, and a lot of people maintaining and making free software are already doing a lot of work for free as it is. (1/?)
(DIR) Post #B5WaUrpHGD1QRI9oum by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn That does not mean that LLM-generated code, assets, or outputs can be allowed in free-software projects. Which is an important distinction. If someone wants to contribute, that's great - point them to resources of how to do so, how to make submissions that can be accepted. If they won't contribute without using claude or whatever, then their contributions must be refused.The ethical, environmental, public health, freedom/human rights, issues of LLMs as they exist are too severe (2/?)
(DIR) Post #B5WaUs2kS7nV74SZua by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn to be acceptable in free software. I would go so far as say the free software definition should be ammended, to exclude any component generated by an LLM or similar generative program that is not:- Purely deterministic OR- Completely free, including all training data, weights, source code, training processes, etc. such that a user (with sufficient resources) could recreate the process from the ground up, in the same way that a user can re-compile GCC, & uses only (3/?)
(DIR) Post #B5WaUsfO8Shp2uXR8i by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
(This half-joking policy idea is CC0, no rights reserved, feel free to include in your own projects with or without attribution; https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/ )
(DIR) Post #B5WaUtMdXfIhD2lyYC by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn Ethically-acquired (so, no DoSing an artists website for it, no ignoring a robots.txt to scrape it, etc) training data. This doesn't solve the *other* ethical problems, but, the nature of these generators is that without freedom in the full chain from data to output as a minimum, they should be excluded from the free software definition - in the same way inserting a binary blob into the linux kernel makes it at least partially non-free. The LLM is a non-free black-box without those(4/?)
(DIR) Post #B5WaUuw7hDHS5ONpVA by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn parts being as free as the source code, and including their outputs should be treated as a binary blob - since there is no way to investigate the process behind how it ended up there or was created. It can't even be meaningfully reverse-engineered in most cases.I'd also add to any project refusal of any generated content that carries the climate, freedom, rights, labour rights, etc. concerns as well - but at a minimum, the outputs of an LLM can not be considered free. (5/5)
(DIR) Post #B5WaUwxcAdf6Mb636W by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn The *people* coming in, if they mean well and will contribute in ethical ways, are fine, and worth welcoming in. But the LLMs themselves - the use of the tool - as it exists undermines the ethical core of the free software movement, and carries too many other ethical problems to be acceptable. (6/5)
(DIR) Post #B5WaUyPelrgerrDxS4 by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn This leaves room for an ethical, actually free, version of the tech, should it appear at some point, which is a compromise, my instinct is that there can be no ethical version, but, I could be wrong. As-is though, the LLMs & Genrative systems in use are a black box - even 'open source' ones, if they do not also provide full access to the training data & methodology, including them in free software is no better than proprietary code. The definitions & licenses need to reflect this. (7/5)
(DIR) Post #B5XNGucCzNRIn11IJs by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
1 likes, 0 repeats
Wrt the LLMs-for-accessibility line of arguing for them - yeah, they are the best option a lot of disabled folks have for using computers right now. And that is also a serious problem. For a fraction of the money being lit on fire for the LLMs, accessibility could be improved dramatically.Instead: You get a chatbot, that is helpful to you basically by accident, and every time you use it it helps fund people who are trying to kill you and take away your health care & harms everyone.
(DIR) Post #B5XNGvdJCluhwiXgfo by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
1 likes, 0 repeats
This is not a case of "LLMs are good" or "LLMs are morally/ethically acceptable" - it is a case of accessibility standards being so low, that a fucking chatbot made without you in mind accidentally being helpful, is a dramatic improvement.
(DIR) Post #B5XNGwncrtlDZ0NROS by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
1 likes, 0 repeats
which *IS* a serious problem that needs to be addressed. In ways that don't also hurt and kill millions-to-billions of people.
(DIR) Post #B5XNGxmxBsoidD4Pz6 by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
1 likes, 0 repeats
I don't have great suggestiosn for alternatives - orca and brltty are gnerally the options that exist on the free software side, that I know of that are still available and haven't died out yet. But would it cost trillions of dollars, and an ever-growing pile of corpses to improve that? Probably Not - it would just require resources to be spent on dealing with it sensibly, and for insurance/disability benefits to cover accessibility devices reasonably so people can get better options.
(DIR) Post #B5XNGyk9dmAjaolhGC by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
1 likes, 0 repeats
So, if you're disabled and using LLMs as an accessibility aid - You deserve better than a chat bot in the first place. I don't have the money to make a better option for you, so, I'm not gonna tell you to stop - I'm disabled and have had to make moral compromises over it, the US/world kinda sucks rn if you're disabled - but I am still opposed to the tech as it exists, and will continue to be against it.
(DIR) Post #B5ZLbos3jKl3SlCB28 by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
1 likes, 0 repeats
@glyph The latter two (gen*AI) are I think equivalent but better than the former two, unfortunately none of those terms is really great either (since it also includes things like Computer-aided-planning programs, which have been around and largely uncontroversioal since the 80's or so, and is technologically a rather different thing, and in a broad sense can also include a simple markov-chain text generator.)
(DIR) Post #B5lCEa0iFO391UbcTA by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Blender I did. Accepting money from a plagiarism-as-a-service company is still overwhelmingly disrespectful to artists. Your policies do not make this okay, Anthropic has no place in any community that even pretends to care about artists and creatives. Whoever approved this should still be fired.
(DIR) Post #B5lCEbJBQCQ134Fstk by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Blender Point to your policies all you want. The correct choice here is to not accept the money, and to tell Anthropic & their ilk to go away. Take a meaningful stance against the companies that are actively hurting and stealing from the artists that depend on tools like blender. Welcoming them, accepting their money, is a clear signal that you care more about the money than the people they harm - including many of your own users - to get it.
(DIR) Post #B6Id7FrTs4iDU4hGgi by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xgranade it was always a very narrow ethical position about a specific subject; which is useful in some cases, but, also means that outside that specific vein, the ethical side was never that well-aligned elsewhere.
(DIR) Post #B6nm05pSAuenBxutM0 by miss_rodent@girlcock.club
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne Possibly, there seems to be problems from multiple sides; with some vibecoded re-implementations and LLM-generated code effectively licence-washing GPL'd code, while other GPL'd projects voluntarily drown themselves in slop code. Though, there's also GPL projects taking more restrictive stances about how or if LLMs can be used, to avoid the latter problem, and hopefully new copyleft projects starting (though, The Industry™ seems to favour permissive licenses like MIT lately?)