• Impractical_Island@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 minutes ago

    I am a feudal peasant who just jumped through time with a strange man in a blue box and I don’t know what any of these terms mean. Please explain them to me as if I were an imbecile, please and thank you. No, I am not an LLM training to teach people we reconstitute in the future about the world today. I am just an ordinary shit farmer like the rest of the good people of my village.

  • iceberg314@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I’m not much of a programmer, but why arern’t more people just using GitLab instead of GitHub?

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 minutes ago

      Still learning git but apparently there’s some “power features”, and, aside from that, it’s the same BS network effect that keeps everyone on all the abusive platforms.

      Discoverability, it’s where all the other people already stashed their code, sunk cost, etc…

      Siiiigh…

      • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Self hosted gitlab is pretty nice, sucks that some features are still paywalled and it’s been getting somewhat bloated after 18.x tho

  • Pika@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I have 3 repos in it but I don’t really care, it was all repos I had publically shared and open anyway

  • the16bitgamer@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Looks for my username. Sees my 8 open repositories in there. Sees my poorly coded Uni projects are also in there.

    Oh lord my code is actively helping making AI worse.

    • Axolotl@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      For some reason the included only the repo for my github profile that has no code in it and not the other ones, my guess is that they avoided me because of the GPL license on all my code

      Spoiler

      also, some repositories were my first projects so they are way more shit than the avarage AI code and it would be funny if they poisoned themselves and i have some archived project that also have shit code but only on github because i switched to codeberg and rewrote them

    • iammike@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Mission failed successfully!

      Glad to be part of the crew with shitty code in Github to taint them plagiarism machines!

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Woo! My crappy code and group projects are in there too!

      May all AI generated code be in one giant main loop thanks to my influence 😈

      • Err(()).unwrap()@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Thinking back to the sins I’ve committed in C# as a high schooler… maybe I should start publishing my works. Put some poison in the soup.

  • heliotrope@retrofed.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Bad News: My old GitHub repos are there.

    Good News: I wrote that shit when I was 12. The code runs, but it’s not good and not inventive.

    • lyralycan@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      51 minutes ago

      For me, they only have one of my repos, and I deleted all my repos months ago, so whether they actually have the code or just the title idk

      Good news: If anyone wants the one they got, I host it myself here instead. Fuck M$, AI thieves etc.

      I mean they can probably steal it from my site too but I’ve taken precautions, and the second biggest reason to migrate off corpo accounts entirely – my site is a much smaller hacker target than Github.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Also, all this reminds me of drama in the Skyrim and Minecraft modding scenes, when devs publish stuff under Apache or MIT or whatever.

    Then the devs find out they don’t like what others are doing with their code. Drama ensues.


    …That’s kinda the deal with permissive licenses. Or posting publicly, like here on Lemmy. People will do things you don’t like with your code or content.

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 minutes ago

      “Look, I wrote this neat highly advanced machine vision thing to help people with accessibility needs communicate with loved ones! ❤️. MIT licensed I guess! Let’s make the world better!”

      Raytheon, Northropp, Boeing, Microsoft, three-letter-agencies suddenly fork it as a base for their own “projects.”

      😐

    • Toga77@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Nah if you’re a massive AI company and you scrape without contribution, you’re a huge piece of shit.

      It’s just stealing plain and simple like anything else.

      They’re not a small user getting open source software, they’re scraping what is already done to try and make you obsolete.

    • unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 hours ago

      There are permissive licenses, and then there are copyleft licenses. Permissive licenses go in the direction of “do whatever the fuck you want”. Copyleft licenses are more like “use it for whatever the fuck you want but if you change it give it back to everyone else with the same conditions”. The people who have projects with copyleft licenses are the ones who are (rightfully) pissed about their projects being used to train AI.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Huggingface isn’t violating copyleft licenses here, I don’t think. And research projects that use it, with citations and documentation, wouldn’t either.

        Now, if some business comes along and tries to make proprietary code derived from the dataset, that’s where things get hairy. But the people doing that are responsible for the potential violation, not Huggingface.

    • amio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      On the other hand, totally did not see this particular shit coming. I wonder if we’ll see a rash of “permissive, except LLMs can fuck right off” licenses.

      • Lev@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Permissive licences should be the ones to fuck off entirely. GPL or death

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          No, libraries should remain permissive IMO. Applications can be restrictive if they want to. I just don’t see any point in a copyleft library or framework.

        • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there is a place for permissive licenses. A great example is reference code for open standards, eg. TCP/IP.

          • Lev@europe.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 minutes ago

            Permissive licences are useful compared to copyleft ones only for unfree actors, which we should fight integrally at every step of the way

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Well… I’d rather the dataset be public and there, with an ostensible centralized opt-out, instead of every AI startup frantically rescraping the same things their predecessors did.

    • qaz@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      True, I understand why this is better than all those companies scraping it individually (for both ability to opt out and site load), but the way they handled opt out is still quite silly.

    • undefinedTruth@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      If they only include repositories that come with a proper open source license technically they don’t even need to provide an opt-out option. So, good thing that at least it exists.

    • undefinedTruth@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Second that. After all all my open repositories are all either licenced under GPL or MIT, so complaining would be a kind of hypocritical.

      • gnutrino@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        GPL is dodgy to be included in training data for AIs that are then used to generate non-openaource code tbh. Even MIT loses the attribution it’s supposed to have once laundered through AI…

        Speaking as someone that’s been into FOSS for a long time, it does piss me off how quickly copyright got thrown under the bus the moment it became inconvenient for people with money.

        • undefinedTruth@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Yes, but what HuggingFace is doing here is the distribution of a data set. And so long the data set itself is open that doesn’t conflict with GPL. HuggingFace is not responsible about how others use that data set.

          Whether LLMs themselves violate copyright for being trained on MIT or GPL code is an entirely different discussion.