Hello, tone-policing genocide-defender and/or carnist 👋

Instead of being mad about words, maybe you should think about why the words bother you more than the injustice they describe.

Have a day!

  • 2 Posts
  • 144 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle





  • Thanks for sharing the actual license text.

    To me, this stinks of companies knowing that if they’re actually required to reproduce the data, they’ll get hit with copyright infringement or other IP-related litigation. Whereas if they can just be trusted to very honestly list their sources, they can omit the sources they weren’t authorized to steal and reproduce content from, they can get away with it.

    I think that, in practice, this means that the industry standard will be to lie and omit the incriminating data sources, and when someone tries to reproduce the model they won’t actually be able to, but they also won’t be able to easily prove one way or another if data was withheld.

    Really, what should (but won’t) happen, is that we should fix our broken IP laws and companies should be held to account for when they engage in behavior that would be prosecuted as piracy or Computer Fraud and Abuse if you or I did it.

    AI is pretty much the epitome of companies getting to act with impunity in the eyes of the law and exerting that power over everyone else, and it’s annoying to see it get a blessing from an “open source” organization.


  • “The new definition requires Open Source models to provide enough information about their training data so that a ‘skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data,’ which goes further than what many proprietary or ostensibly Open Source models do today,” said Ayah Bdeir, who leads AI strategy at Mozilla.

    Garbage. What this says to me is that they’re going to allow companies that create models that were trained on data that would be illegal for you and me to scrape and regurgigate, to keep the data to themselves as long as they “provide enough information” for someone else that lacks the resources or legal impunity that companies have to theoretically re-steal the data. Which, you know, means that the models won’t be reproducible by any reasonable standard, and can’t actually be called open source.

    But the OSI is just a handful of companies in a trenchcoat, so I’m not surprised by what they would call “open”.








  • Ah. If we’re talking mobile, all bets are off. FIDO prompts require Apple and Google to provide the necessary APIs for third-party devs to use, and are still somewhat new. It’s likely that since iOS browsers are still just re-skinned WebKit (until the EU stuff settles and Mozilla implements Gecko on iOS), FF on iOS can leverage the OS APIs, but making it work with Gecko on Android requires more work.

    I was referring to desktop, where those limitations aren’t a hindrance.





  • FYI: the people in here recommending the open source competitors for Yubico aren’t mentioning one thing: YubiKeys, being proprietary, support a proprietary protocol called Yubico OTP in addition to the FIDO authentication protocol that the open source competitors can do.

    The reason this matters is that some applications, like the Linux Bitwarden desktop app (there are others, but this is one that I’ve had to deal with), don’t support FIDO authentication, but do support Yubico OTP. This means that, for those apps, the open source keys wouldn’t be a valid authentication method.

    Granted, the number of applications like this are small, and probably grows smaller by the day, but it’s an important distinction to be aware of.