🌸 lumi-nhac 🌱

@webjac@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu if the tech sector were competitive, if we had 100s of smartphone operating systems to choose from, on equal grounds, then what you're saying could make sense however, this is not the world we live in. apple and google have a shared monopoly on smartphone operating systems

@mullvadnet@mastodon.online and it also:

• assumes you have a smartphone
• uses drm to make sure you only use a google-approved or apple-approved device

it's honestly awful, and them calling it "open source" is misleading. you can't effectively fork it yourself or make your own implementation

@delta @sovtechfund @deltatouch this makes it even more important to have a full ban on genai outputs in the deltachat project, including code, art, video, promotional material, docs, writing and everything else. we really want deltachat to be an ethical option support.delta.chat/t/any-official-position-on-the-use-of-ai/5039 please don't be on the side of fascists and billionaires

@knoppix95 @signalapp To register on Signal Desktop, a phone number will still be required. However, this can be either a mobile number or a landline, including basic mobile phones or dumb phones. This will make Signal accessible to users without a smartphone. ugh. what a nothingburger

@mrmasterkeyboard estrogen is the future of programming

@kimapr @signalapp @knoppix95 the biggest issue with signal is that it's centralized, and this enables the second biggest issue: it requires unnecessary, very personal information to register this is even worse because in many countries, phone numbers are tied to your id, so this is effectively id verification

@VeroniqueB99@mastodon.social it'd be cool to have an acronym like this for genai-regurgitated code CRAP - Code Regurgitated by Automated Processes ?

@Tutanota could i ask to have a look at our request to ban generative "ai" in all tutanota projects? github.com/tutao/tutanota/discussions/10759

@webjac@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu would also say that what apple is doing undermines the free market. without interoperability, companies can themselves restrict the market it's not only government regulations that can go against free market, the companies themselves can (this doesn't mean i think the free market is a good idea, btw. i am opposed to capitalism as a whole. but if i were forced to think in a more capitalist way, this is what i would say)

@hell@defcon.social :3

@leeloo@c.im @webjac@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu the whole tech market is evil and intent on never giving you an ethical choice :(

@ariadne@social.treehouse.systems maybe this is something i should highlight more when i talk about llms, as this is definitely true there are so many reasons against it, and they're all valid, which makes it even more insane that it's being accepted anywhere the reason i tend to talk about most is that it strips the humanity from everything it touches. it takes in all this human creativity and ingenuity and then soullessly attempts to replicate it. it's very offensive

@ShadowJonathan@tech.lgbt thinking was one of the biggest mistakes in my whole life i cannot recommend this

@josephcox@infosec.exchange lmao

@hipsterelectron@circumstances.run i don't think it needs to be fully p2p, it could just use servers as dumb relays, like deltachat and simplex do. going full p2p has its own set of problems, especially regarding mobile devices and connectivity i'm totally open to chat about this more. i also won't be able to collaborate effectively as i lack the spoons right now. maybe in the future x)

@mollyim@fosstodon.org this is on the way to make signal actually viable. if people could use it without a phone number and could choose which server to connect to the next step would then be open federation, to liberate signal

@hipsterelectron@circumstances.run @mollyim@fosstodon.org very interesting ideas :D instant messaging protocols have been a special interest of mine for a long time now. i've mostly done deep dives in how xmpp, matrix, deltachat and simplex work. i used to develop xmpp software in a previous life from all of my flip-flopping on what i think the best model is, i have settled on that i think the point-to-point model is likely best for dms and small groups. keep the server as dumb as possible. in small groups where the participants trust one-another, the threat model does not need to be very paranoid towards whoever is in it (but does for attackers outside of it, ofc) for bigger spaces, i like what xmpp muc and irc do, where one server is the focal point of the room and coordinates everything. i do like xmpp a bit more here as the server you are on kinda acts like a bouncer ended up just rambling a bit, eheh :3 a general purpose overlay network would also be very nice

@akiiwata@plush.city @harmonycorrupted@kinkycats.org ​:neocat_blush:​

@akiiwata@plush.city @harmonycorrupted@kinkycats.org rock rock i'm a gock

@harmonycorrupted@kinkycats.org beep beep i'm a sheep toot toot i'm a food? w-wait ​:neocat_0_0:​

@sophie@floss.social @LucasWerkmeister@wikis.world i feel the path forward is to make it as shameful as possible to use genai. to get it banned in as many places as we possibly can and try to shift the public perception of it as negatively as possible also to band together with other affected professions and try to get all genai banned for all purposes

@cwebber@social.coop we cannot change the past, but we can affect the future we can object to proprietary software, generative models, fasciscm, remote attestation, centralization, closed standards, industrialized animal agriculture, capitalism, nationalism, transphobia, homophobia, racism, sexism and all of the other awful things what we need to do is to find one-another and band together. be loud

@cwebber@social.coop ​​

@kde@floss.social i mean in the development of the project, not the features of the project to have a policy not accept any contributions created (partially or fully) by generative models. with code this would be about banning eg codex, copilot, claude code, deepseek, mistral, etc.

@blinry @teamtype forge.starlightnet.work/Team/No-AI/issues/65 :)

@Blender@mastodon.social the minimal morally defensible position is to reject genai entirely. it's inherently abusive technology, built on mountains of violence and has the purpose of devaluing humanity if you want anthropic to sponsor you, sure, but then also have a full genai ban and a hostile stance against it

@hipsterelectron@circumstances.run @mollyim@fosstodon.org afaik signal works a lot like deltachat and simplex, where it is mostly a point-to-point thing, with groups being done in a way where the client is doing the broadcasting to all members. correct me if i'm wrong, tho federation here would then just mean servers relaying, i guess signal has a few big issues, one being related to the other: it's centralized and it requires phone numbers to sign up. if it were not centralized i'm sure the phone number requirement wouldn't be enforceable anyways (and it should not be. it's just wrong to require a phone number to sign up) with liberating signal, i mean addressing those issues, making it viable for me to use and recommend

@Wolkensteine@mastodon.wolkenheim.eu @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de oh that is very neat indeed it's actually way more enforceable than people expect, because genai boosters tend to be so obvious about it. and i think banning obvious use or promotion of genai is already a great first step. at least don't let them proudly use it also have a document stating codeberg itself is completely against genai at that point, why would genai boosters use codeberg? they can just use github, and they can be proud and out about their dehumanization machines there

@delta@chaos.social i've stopped using it, provisionally, until there is a policy and i encourage others to do this as well

@leeloo@c.im @webjac@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu yeah, all walled gardens must be cracked open and everything must be interoperable and independently implementable by anyone, without having to ask any authority

@harmonycorrupted@kinkycats.org it's gross when people needlessly discourage others from doing what they want to do. shouldn't we all try to be supportive of one-another? if there is no reason why what they're doing is problematic, at least don't break them down over it. and preferably encourage them breaking people down will only foster a toxic environment for everyone, where no-one feels like they can truly be themself; where no-one feels like they can express themself

@kde@floss.social this looks really cool! are there any plans to add a policy banning all generative "ai" in the project? including for code, docs, artwork and everything else?

@theresnotime oh boi what flavor ​​

@dansup i looked it up and my first impression was it's a recommendation system, i might be wrong regardless, what i refer to as genai are these huge models trained on data where no consent was given, with the purpose of replicating human creativity. so stuff like midjourney, claude, codex, dall-e, chatgpt, deepseek, stable diffusion and such

@mollyim@fosstodon.org @hipsterelectron@circumstances.run does server-less here mean full p2p? :o

@hipsterelectron@circumstances.run @mollyim@fosstodon.org i feel like this issue could be addressed by requiring invites and/or introductions. it could also be augmented with web of trust, possibly i think this would work with adding contacts and with small groups, but for large groups i feel the point-to-point model becomes more of a burden and many of its advantages will be lost. at that point you also will likely not want double ratchet anymore, or you may want to ditch e2ee entirely. big community spaces are a whole other use case that i am not covering here so, with this, invite links/codes need to be generated before you can add someone, these could be one-use, limited-time use, limited-count use or have some other criteria. these also should be revocable in case someone abuses them. in case of massive spam, the client can detect that one invite is used a lot in rapid succession and pre-emptively block it, notifying the user. possibly quarantining every add since the flood started and having the user manually confirm it (or bulk deny) this means that you cannot add someone directly using their identity, however. maybe some revocable human-readable invite shortcode mechanism could be made for this? i don't know this could also be combined with approaches like web-of-trust, if your contacts are willing to expose parts of their social graphs. maybe there are ways to do this without revealing too much information? i don't know another way to add someone would be via introductions via mutual contacts. i think it is alright to assume you would trust your contacts at least somewhat the client can keep track of the graph of how people got invited, by who they got introduced, etc, to make it easier to detect issues and address them

@Wolkensteine@mastodon.wolkenheim.eu @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de i use codeberg and i absolutely detest the dehumanization machine x) the copyright angle is a grey area, it might become legal at some point, or might become illegal it is best to outlaw genai on ethical grounds. because even if it becomes legal, it is still unethical

@Wolkensteine@mastodon.wolkenheim.eu @Codeberg@social.anoxinon.de yeah, do what you practically can and foster an environment toxic to dehumanization machines

@grepe@ieji.de @jdelacueva@mastodon.social @IvanSanchez@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu @fruitchypear@owo.cafe @greatlaketrout@noc.social seatbelts and mirrors don't restrict the driver; the driver is also still free not to use them. tho if they get caught, they get penalized remote attestation tech restricts the user massively on what could arguably be called an extension of their body. no-one should have the "freedom" to tell me what I can or can't do with my body or my devices

@failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to @ana@starlite.rodeo we can argue about whether that is true or not. but even assuming that is true, that doesn't fix the massive social, ethical, political and environmental issues with this technology

@grepe@ieji.de @jdelacueva@mastodon.social @IvanSanchez@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu @fruitchypear@owo.cafe @greatlaketrout@noc.social i feel it is useful here to separate corporate needs from consumer ones with corporate devices, you actually do want this kind of control. but then the user is not supposed to own the device, it's the company's device with consumer devices, the user owns the device, which means everything should be on their terms. someone else should not have the "freedom" to decide things on my device. my device means my rules. the application should just do what i want it to do and nothing else

@Tutanota@mastodon.social please also make an actual public stance against genai, instead of the silence we are getting github.com/tutao/tutanota/discussions/10759

@Alsvid@brain.worm.pink hewo :o

@mainec@fromm.social @cwebber@social.coop @Teckids@bildung.social for me, it's things like starlightnet.work and their no-ai list, and a lot of cool people on fedi that are doing their own thing i do feel there are so many of us, but we need to find one-another so we can band together

@grepe@ieji.de @jdelacueva@mastodon.social @IvanSanchez@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu @fruitchypear@owo.cafe @greatlaketrout@noc.social my perspective is the user should always have full control, and should be able to do whatever they want. the application must always be working on their terms, never on the terms of the developer so authority here means any external entity that has any control coercive over their device

@cwebber@social.coop make it impossible to ignore us

@delta@chaos.social i love the piggy-backing on smtp as just a dumb transport i wish i could keep supporting deltachat, but i'm waiting until there is a full ban on generative models: support.delta.chat/t/any-official-position-on-the-use-of-ai/5039 i know many others feel this way and i'm urging the project to implement a full ban :/

@grepe@ieji.de @jdelacueva@mastodon.social @IvanSanchez@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu @fruitchypear@owo.cafe @greatlaketrout@noc.social do you have any suggestions on how to implement this without relying on any authority? and where it is impossible to tweak it so it does?

@kde@floss.social that's great to hear! ​​ would be nice to have an explicit policy that any contributions made with generative models will be rejected

@grepe@ieji.de @jdelacueva@mastodon.social @IvanSanchez@mastodon.social @EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu @fruitchypear@owo.cafe @greatlaketrout@noc.social that's the job of the user. they should be educated not to do things like that opening the can of remote attestation means you pull in a lot of nefarious uses, it's just not worth it