Skip to content

Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale Logo Fediverso

Social Forum federato con il resto del mondo. Non contano le istanze, contano le persone

From Bruce Schneier: "All it takes to poison AI training data is to create a website:

Uncategorized
31 30 50

Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
Post suggeriti
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    1 Views
    For those whose companies force AI adoption and use.That's the same for me, but this proposal passed.I explained things like this:"OK, guys, we have a common performance goal to adopt and promote use of AI. In order to do so, we need to document our doings in an organised and meaningful way. We need to write markdown, we need to create mermaid and plantuml diagrams, we need to describe architectures and reasons why we did them, and we need to share this corpus of organized knowledge among us". This is paramount, otherwise we will get only what any LLM could output to anyone making the same question. We need context that is ours, and this context need to be available, cleaned of clutter, and thoroughly reviewed.""Then, we will have won. Both if we decide to go full AI or not. But if we were able to gain some best-practice workflows for our work documentation, we will have increased our efficiency and stepped way ahead of any LLM for decades."Do it for yourself and keep the source notes. Do it in #Markdown or plain text. Remove Microslop from your flows.#LLM #aiatwork #ai
  • 0 Votes
    7 Posts
    3 Views
    @mathieui@piaille.fr Thanks for engaging with this. I appreciate the pushback, and I think some of your concerns are worth taking seriously. That said, I want to clarify something about my position: TGPL (or any specific licensing mechanism) is just one possible avenue among many. The broader argument isn't tied to any single instrument. Regulatory pressure on governments to mandate that models trained on public data be returned to the public, expanded public funding for open research infrastructure, international treaty reform—these are all on the table. The point is strategic pluralism, not a bet on one tool. On the copyright concern: yes, major players have shown contempt for copyright. But that's precisely why I think purely technical or market-based solutions are insufficient, and why political and legislative pressure matters. The history of generic medicine access is instructive here—no single mechanism won that fight, but the combination of compulsory licensing advocacy, treaty pressure, and public funding reform produced real change over time. Now, your Luddite parallel: I actually think it argues for my position rather than against it. You're right that the weavers never reclaimed the technology. But the lesson I draw from that isn't “therefore reclamation is impossible.” It's that refusing or destroying the means of production doesn't work. What eventually produced change was organized labor movements that took the existence of that technology as a given and fought over who controls it and under what conditions. That's exactly the kind of struggle I'm advocating for here. The real question you're raising, I think, is about the subject: is there an organized political force capable of carrying this through? That's a fair and hard question. But it's an argument for building that force, not for abandoning the goal.
  • 🆕 blog!

    Uncategorized llm pdf python
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    26 Views
    @dhd6 you and @jleedev have both come up with interesting and different alternatives. Thanks!
  • 0 Votes
    3 Posts
    9 Views
    @codinghorror @Sempf You better run.