My #Wikipedia request for comment just closed, finally banning #AI content in articles!
Uncategorized
62
Posts
43
Posters
2
Views
-
@quarknova I think that unfortunately, this policy is exactly what big tech wants - fresh training knowledge and training data from humans, which the tech companies are free to remix into new public domain works that are not protected by share-alike.
With this policy, Wikipedia demands that humans work for the bots for free, and the humans can't even take advantage of the bots to work against the theft of the commons.
@yoasif @quarknova You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no way for humans to "take advantage of the bots to work against the theft of the commons". Slop-spewing bots cannot magically create new knowledge of the real world. All they can do is remix things that were already written and scooped up into their training set to make something that sounds plausible but that has no provenance.
Yes, malevolent capitalists will continue to scrape and attempt to enclose the commons. We fight them and continue to maintain the things we need and that nourish us. We don't destroy our own treasures to keep them from copying.
-
@yoasif @quarknova You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no way for humans to "take advantage of the bots to work against the theft of the commons". Slop-spewing bots cannot magically create new knowledge of the real world. All they can do is remix things that were already written and scooped up into their training set to make something that sounds plausible but that has no provenance.
Yes, malevolent capitalists will continue to scrape and attempt to enclose the commons. We fight them and continue to maintain the things we need and that nourish us. We don't destroy our own treasures to keep them from copying.
@dalias @quarknova I don't actually believe that the bots can generate knowledge, but that is what we are told.
The lie is revealed with the demand for real human knowledge.
It isn't "malevolent capitalists" -- it is Wikipedia that has sold out its community: https://www.avclub.com/wikipedia-ai-partnerships-meta-amazon-microsoft
If it is good for the goose, why isn't good enough for the gander?
More precisely, why continue to contribute to Wikipedia when they have preemptively sold out the commons?
-
My genuine hope is that this can spark a broader change. Empower communities on other platforms, and see this become a grassroots movement of users deciding whether AI should be welcome in their communities, and to what extent. On their own terms.
A pushback against the #enshittification and forceful push of AI by so many companies in these last few years.
@quarknova I would say that the battle was lost when Wikipedia allowed big tech to buy access to copyleft content without needing to share alike.
Your new policy simply enforces "fresh meat" for the models, without any requirement for reciprocity back to the commons.
Wikipedians then, are signing up to work for free to feed the models, while people downstream from the models can use their labor entirely for free without giving back.
-
My #Wikipedia request for comment just closed, finally banning #AI content in articles! "The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited"
Kudos to all who participated in writing the guideline (especially Kowal2701) and the whole WikiProject AI Cleanup team, this was very much a group effort!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models/RfC
@quarknova yes!! 👏👏👏
-
@dalias @quarknova I don't actually believe that the bots can generate knowledge, but that is what we are told.
The lie is revealed with the demand for real human knowledge.
It isn't "malevolent capitalists" -- it is Wikipedia that has sold out its community: https://www.avclub.com/wikipedia-ai-partnerships-meta-amazon-microsoft
If it is good for the goose, why isn't good enough for the gander?
More precisely, why continue to contribute to Wikipedia when they have preemptively sold out the commons?
@yoasif @quarknova That was a mistake, for complex reasons. But it doesn't justify burning down commons that you don't have the means to replicate outside of the organization at present.
-
My #Wikipedia request for comment just closed, finally banning #AI content in articles! "The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited"
Kudos to all who participated in writing the guideline (especially Kowal2701) and the whole WikiProject AI Cleanup team, this was very much a group effort!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models/RfC
@quarknova yay 🎉
-
@yoasif @quarknova That was a mistake, for complex reasons. But it doesn't justify burning down commons that you don't have the means to replicate outside of the organization at present.
@dalias @quarknova I mean, forks could exist.
Forks wouldn't have a deal for big tech to opt out of share-alike, so we could conceivably see better stewards for this repository of knowledge than the Jimmy Wales crew.
As it is, contributing directly to Wikipedia constitutes a tacit acknowledgement of a rejection of the license that your contributions are nominally contributed under; Wikipedia has opted you out, even if you haven't.
-
My #Wikipedia request for comment just closed, finally banning #AI content in articles! "The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited"
Kudos to all who participated in writing the guideline (especially Kowal2701) and the whole WikiProject AI Cleanup team, this was very much a group effort!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models/RfC
@quarknova@wikis.world Thank you.
-
@dalias @quarknova I mean, forks could exist.
Forks wouldn't have a deal for big tech to opt out of share-alike, so we could conceivably see better stewards for this repository of knowledge than the Jimmy Wales crew.
As it is, contributing directly to Wikipedia constitutes a tacit acknowledgement of a rejection of the license that your contributions are nominally contributed under; Wikipedia has opted you out, even if you haven't.
@yoasif @quarknova Even if you don't want to contribute to Wikipedia for these reasons (completely legitimate), you should want it not to be burned to the ground by LLM slop in the absence of any viable fork to replace it. The policy banning LLM slop benefits us all by preserving a commons that was built before the very unfortunately and shortsighted choice the org made.
-
My #Wikipedia request for comment just closed, finally banning #AI content in articles! "The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited"
Kudos to all who participated in writing the guideline (especially Kowal2701) and the whole WikiProject AI Cleanup team, this was very much a group effort!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models/RfC
@quarknova thank you, too!
-
@yoasif @quarknova Even if you don't want to contribute to Wikipedia for these reasons (completely legitimate), you should want it not to be burned to the ground by LLM slop in the absence of any viable fork to replace it. The policy banning LLM slop benefits us all by preserving a commons that was built before the very unfortunately and shortsighted choice the org made.
@dalias @quarknova I agree - I am simply trying to make people aware of the fact that your contributions are no longer protected by share-alike when contributing to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia has opted you out.
If you don't think your contributions should be helping drive the slop that we all bemoan, it is probably a good idea to not continue to fund it for free.
Big Tech can hire people to edit a Wikipedia-like corpus that could conceivably better than Wikipedia; they've got the money.
-
@dalias @quarknova I agree - I am simply trying to make people aware of the fact that your contributions are no longer protected by share-alike when contributing to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia has opted you out.
If you don't think your contributions should be helping drive the slop that we all bemoan, it is probably a good idea to not continue to fund it for free.
Big Tech can hire people to edit a Wikipedia-like corpus that could conceivably better than Wikipedia; they've got the money.
@dalias @quarknova I don't agree that the commons is preserved, FWIW - I think continuing to contribute acknowledges that your contributions are given as a kind of dual-license - share-alike for the commons, proprietary (and paid for) for big tech.
Downstream from that, since the license is ignored when the trained LLMs output the contributions as public domain, you have preserved the contribution in a very different way than intended -- kind of a monkey paw effect.
-
@dalias @quarknova I don't agree that the commons is preserved, FWIW - I think continuing to contribute acknowledges that your contributions are given as a kind of dual-license - share-alike for the commons, proprietary (and paid for) for big tech.
Downstream from that, since the license is ignored when the trained LLMs output the contributions as public domain, you have preserved the contribution in a very different way than intended -- kind of a monkey paw effect.
@dalias @quarknova By allowing big tech to produce public domain works from contributions contributed as share-alike, you destroy the commons from the inside out - you reduce the incentive to contribute as share-alike when others can capture your contributions without needing to give back.
-
@dalias @quarknova I don't agree that the commons is preserved, FWIW - I think continuing to contribute acknowledges that your contributions are given as a kind of dual-license - share-alike for the commons, proprietary (and paid for) for big tech.
Downstream from that, since the license is ignored when the trained LLMs output the contributions as public domain, you have preserved the contribution in a very different way than intended -- kind of a monkey paw effect.
@yoasif @quarknova We are not talking about contributing. We are talking about having access to a vast amount of information that has never before existed in one place available to anyone in human history, or letting it be overrun and destroyed by LLM-worshipping vandals. If you don't think the policy to keep the vandals out is a good thing because you're pissed off about what the bad stewards of it all did, and you just want to see it all burn, I don't really think I have anything else to say to you.
-
@yoasif @quarknova We are not talking about contributing. We are talking about having access to a vast amount of information that has never before existed in one place available to anyone in human history, or letting it be overrun and destroyed by LLM-worshipping vandals. If you don't think the policy to keep the vandals out is a good thing because you're pissed off about what the bad stewards of it all did, and you just want to see it all burn, I don't really think I have anything else to say to you.
@dalias @quarknova I'm talking about contributing - this whole thread is about contributing.
If you are talking about something else, I'm happy to discontinue discussing.
-
My #Wikipedia request for comment just closed, finally banning #AI content in articles! "The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited"
Kudos to all who participated in writing the guideline (especially Kowal2701) and the whole WikiProject AI Cleanup team, this was very much a group effort!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models/RfC
@quarknova On one hand nice on the other hand model operators get a good good mine of curated conent to prevent model collapse -
@dalias @quarknova I'm talking about contributing - this whole thread is about contributing.
If you are talking about something else, I'm happy to discontinue discussing.
@yoasif @quarknova The thread you replied into is about successfully getting a no-slop policy adopted.
-
@yoasif @quarknova The thread you replied into is about successfully getting a no-slop policy adopted.
@dalias @quarknova How is slop inserted into Wikipedia?
Contributions.
-
My genuine hope is that this can spark a broader change. Empower communities on other platforms, and see this become a grassroots movement of users deciding whether AI should be welcome in their communities, and to what extent. On their own terms.
A pushback against the #enshittification and forceful push of AI by so many companies in these last few years.
I completely agree. This is not just excellent news for en.Wikipedia, it's also a symbol of holding to a high intellectual standard for other communities, many who are tempted by #TyrannyOfConvenience arguments.
-
My #Wikipedia request for comment just closed, finally banning #AI content in articles! "The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited"
Kudos to all who participated in writing the guideline (especially Kowal2701) and the whole WikiProject AI Cleanup team, this was very much a group effort!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models/RfC
@quarknova Thank you - I had no idea this was happening and absolutely would have argued against AI slop on such an important and prominent source of information.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@alice @garyseven cool username!
-
Hi @garyseven, #Welcome to the community!
-
I thought the middle one was the most interesting — it’s pre-1927, made with a sharpened nail for the barb instead of a sliver of bone (as became common), was likely made by, sized for, and used by someone just a bit bigger than I am (see the linked article, above), and is beautifully carved with an octopus and two otters — you can see photos of it online:
https://collection-online.moa.ubc.ca/search/item?keywords=A137
-
Was asked today, as an icebreaker, to share what I was currently obsessed with.
My answer: The design and function of these wooden (Pacific) halibut hooks that have used by the communities of the northwest coast of the US for thousands of years: https://hakaimagazine.com/features/the-halibut-hook-revival/
I went to see these examples, from the Haida, at the Museum of Anthropology at UBC, yesterday.
-
Tony Hoare passed away.
This quote has stuck with me since I first read it as a teen. It sparked a decade-long obsession with simplicity later expanded by Rich Hickey's Simple vs Easy.
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/C._A._R._Hoare#The_Emperor's_Old_Clothes
-
@IanAMartin @the_turtle @catsalad yeah I know, but I mean
It was a gimmick
-
The War on Iran must stop.
-
@catsalad@infosec.exchange i never knew a clock could hurt me
