What would the “bot that finds bots larping as people” do exactly? Ban them? Block or mute them? File reports? DM an admin about them?
If it’s just for pointing out suspected LLM-generated material, I think humans would be better at that than bots would be, and could block, mute, or file reports as necessary.
Also, are you saying you intend to make a bot that posts LLM-generated drivel or a bot that detects LLM-generated drivel?
It’s almost as if the “aRtIfiCiAl iNtElLiGenCe” is as big a cult as blockchain is, isn’t it?
Blaster Master was an underrated metroidvania. I’m a little bummed they didn’t mention that in the article.
It should be illegal for a video like that to exist without showing it firing.
Most games were never made to be modded. The communities are hacking mods into these games, many of which were even designed to make modding harder. (Because mods compete against sequels or something? I dunno. Intellectual property is a mental illness.) It’s not terribly surprising that games that weren’t meant to be modded have confusingly inconsistent methods for loading mods. Because those mods work fundamentally differently from game to game. If a mod happens to be easy-ish to install, chances are it’s either quite a simple mod (a model/texture replacement or some such, or just something that’s not terribly hard to mod) or a lot of work has been put into making it easier.
I imagine sabots would do pretty well against graphics cards.
I… doubt it?
I took the liberty of looking in the developer tools as it failed, and there was a 500 response. The connection to Hulu’s servers was all over HTTPS and I didn’t get any certificate warning, so unless my ISP managed to get Hulu’s private key or got with a corrupt registrar willing to issue a valid replacement certificate, no ISP should be able to change response codes on a man-in-the-middle basis or a redirecting-traffic-to-a-hostile-server basis.
And given how many people have reported issues, I doubt it’s specific to any particular ISPs.
Net neutrality being dead is a huge bummer, but I don’t think this can be blamed on that.
Hot take: BotW > TotK
Too little too late. The damage is already done.
And even on that page, they’re still being assholes about Open Source (“Our use of the term ‘open source’ thus far has been not out of carelessness, but out of disdain for OSI approved licenses which nevertheless allow developers to be exploited by large corporate interests.”) while pretending what they’ve done with the FUTO license is some boon to consumer rights (“Fundamentally, our goals are to build great products that don’t abuse people, beat the tech oligopoly, and elevate the rights of programmers developing software that has source code open to public scrutiny and tinkering.”). And they’re still not dropping the effort to dilute the term “Open Source” (“The OSI, an organization with confidential charter members and large corporate sponsors, does not have any legal right to say what is and is not ‘open source’. It is arrogant of them to lay claim to the definition.”).
Also, just as an aside, as page that the words “legal right” in that last quote link to says, the OSI attempted to trademark “Open Source.” I’m not sure why FUTO seems to think the same reasons why the “Open Source” trademark was rejected won’t apply just as much to the term “Source First” (but they do seem to think that: “we will be making our own term and trademarking it.”)
You should post the name of every community you’ve blocked as a distinct comment in here and unblock any that get at least at least 10 points. And you aren’t allowed to downvote or un-upvote any.
“AI”.
(Ok, not a “word” so much as an “initialism.” But otherwise, it qualifies.)
To speak of AI models being “made public domain” is to presuppose that the AI models in question are covered by some branch of intellectual property. Has it been established whether AI models (even those trained on properly licensed content) even are covered by some branch of intellectual property in any particular jurisdiction(s)? Or maybe by “public domain” the author means that they should be required to publish the weights and also that they shouldn’t get any trade secret protections related to those weights?
I had a professor who used to work at Lockheed Martin. I heard he returned to Lockheed after quitting the teaching business.
Apparently after he left Lockheed and other folks were there, they noticed his name on a ton of the code at Lockheed, decided he was a legend, and wrote/recorded a rap song about him by name, never having met him. That song got traded around the CS department at my university and the professor finally added it to his faculty page with a stern warning that it contained some strong language. Lol. (The song referred to the professor in question as “a bad motherfucker.”)
Can you name any real-world examples of this happening?
Actually, I can. I know before Minetest (a FOSS Minecraft clone (they’d bristle at being called that, but anyway) that has since renamed itself to “Luanti” - I reccommend it, actually) officially supported Android, somebody ported it to Android (I don’t remember what they called the clone) and put it on the play store for money. Now, Minetest wasn’t under a copyleft license, so the clone wasn’t even FOSS (nor was it legally required to be.) I don’t remember any malware being involved. The Minetest community did all heave a collective groan when a wave of clueless people who didn’t realize it was FOSS started joining Minetest servers. People in the Minetest community definitely resented the clone. But beyond that, no real harm came to the game or its players. Some folks paid for an Android Minetest client that didn’t afford them the freedoms guaranteed by the Free Software Definition or Open Source Definition, but at the time the official Minetest client didn’t support Android. Aside from that, I don’t know of any harm that came from any of that. And had Minetest been under a copyleft license, even less harm would have come of that.
Also, in practice, anyone who’s only out to get a quick buck is going to either avoid copylefted code like the plague or just blatantly violate the terms of the license. They’re unlikely to actually put forth the effort to compose a proper GPL compliance plan. (In fact, the ongoing U.S. court case “SFC v. Visio” is very apropos. Visio is named as a defendnt in that suit specifically for blatantly violating the terms of the GPL. Specifically the copyleft portions.)
And if someone who does just want to make a quick buck clones some GPLd code and sells it in compliance with the license, I’m still not convinced that does anyone any harm. The GPL was also designed with non-programmer empowerment in mind, specifically allowing the use case where if a non-coder wants a feature added to a piece of GPL’d code, they can commission a coder to add it. But I’m not sure the Grayjay license would allow that even if it would allow one to make changes themselves noncommercially.
I dunno. You seem to be really hung up on “contrubuting nothing”. And mind you, I don’t think that’s uncommon. That’s a big part of the whole “post-open-source” thing Parens is involved with these days. If FOSS as a whole was floundering right now in a way that money could solve, I maybe could get on board with the idea that there might be improvements that could be made to the existing FOSS paradigm. (Though something like legally-preserved nag screens in source-available software seems at best a clueless and ham-handed approach to that problem.)
Much more concerning to me is that software respect users’ rights. I mostly won’t use software I don’t feel I can trust (either legally or security-wise.) And FOSS is software I can virtually always trust. When I’m publishing software, I do so under the AGPL v3 because I kinda don’t care if anyone sells it. (Though they can always get a free version from my GitLab (yeah, I switched to GitLab before Codeberg was a thing).) I do care if someone distributes (for money or gratis) my code in a way that doesn’t afford the end user the four freedoms. Which is why I use AGPL v3 over other options like non-copyleft FOSS licenses or noncommercial licenses.
And, just to repeat this, again, I’m not angry at FUTO for releasing their code under non-FOSS licenses. That’s enough to make me not want to use their software. But not enough to make me resent them the way I do. The anger is at the way they’ve been sabotaging Open Source to the best of their ability while misrepresenting themselves as consumer rights advocates.
Why is that a problem?
I don’t mind them asking for money. As I said just a moment ago in another comment, “I’m pissed at them for doing everything in their power to sabotage Open Source specifically to serve their bottom line while also pretending they’re some champion of consumer rights in tech.” I wouldn’t honestly be as pissed at them if they a) had just admitted from the get-go that they were a for-profit company with no actual interest in improving/solving enshittification and b) had never coopted the term “Open Source” or dunked on Open Source.
But feel free to make a non-profit true open source counterpart if you like
One of the goals of source first licenses is to stop enshittification since it doesn’t allow paid clones
Copyleft prevents enshittification much better than anything in their license. If someone makes a paid clone of some, for instance, AGPL 3.0 program, one person can buy it and release the source code of the paid version and then all of the improvements can be incorporated back into the version from which it was forked.
Unless the paid clone makers go so far as to break the terms of the license. But that’s not a problem that the Grayjay license solves any better than the AGPL 3.0.
Grayjay’s license is itself a textbook example of enshittification.
Not saying I agree with their policy, but I would hope more for-profit businesses make their source code available
I’m not pissed at FUTO for releasing their source code under a non-FOSS license. I’m pissed at them for doing everything in their power to sabotage Open Source specifically to serve their bottom line while also pretending they’re some champion of consumer rights in tech. And it’s really shitty to use a .org address to further drive home the lie that they’re anything but a for-profit company fucking over consumers to make a profit.
And by “clarifying” you mean “dunking on Open Source and parading around like the saviors of the human race for inventing Open-Source-except-with-donation-nags-to-fund-their-fully-for-profit-business.” Good job, guys, you’ve solved enshittification (/s).
Yeah, the score seems to be rising rapidly. It must be that the brigade ran out of accounts.
Original prose is a marvelous spectacle.
But AI? I dunno. I remain skeptical.
(The above is not written by an AI. I promise. ;) )