|
Wordle 1,018 4/6
🟨🟨⬜⬜🟨
🟩⬜🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟨🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,018 5/6*
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
⬜🟨🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,018 5/6
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
🟨🟨🟨⬜⬜
🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟨⬜⬜🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,018 5/6
⬛🟨⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟨⬛🟨🟨
🟨⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟨🟩🟩⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,018 4/6*
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟨
🟩⬛⬛🟨🟨
🟩🟨⬛🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
The definition of Open Source, by the OSI, has a clause that I feel is an issue today.
Quote: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
I would argue that the most important issue facing development today is the ethics around AI. Beyond even the economic upheavals going on where entire job titles are disappearing in the same way that the printing press caused a fair bit of gnashing of teeth. AI provides the world with a weapon more dangerous than a gun in a more convenient and cheaper package. We all know that laws are woefully slow to keep up with even the previous pace of IT innovation, and AI has leapt forward so fast that the catch up will take years or decades.
The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones.
This isn't a commentary on the rights and wrongs of writing software. A knife can save a life or take a life: we need them, and so too with software. What I'm concerned about is whether, after 40 years, the blessing of the Open Source badge makes ethical sense.
AI provides an escape hatch here where the code can remain Free (as in freedom) but the models are subject to ethical constraints imposed by the owners (or collectors) of the data. To me this won't work because it's like saying the gun is safe because one of the types of bullets it uses is banned (but the other 9 are on Amazon next-day).
So what do you guys think? Let's ignore the practical difficulties of ever enforcing a restriction on code use, as well as the difficulty in defining "ethical" in a way that covers every culture, society and time.
What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World:
- That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint
- That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I will have to ponder on this Chris
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones.
It's no different than a government trying to legislate morality and trying to impose your morals unto others. That's impossible because "morality" is subjective. There is objective wrong and right, but there's also subjective.
To use a non-political example, if I laugh at a dude for being rejected by a chick because he did something dumb and I find it funny, but he goes home and cries about it while listening to Celine Dion for three years. Did I do this dude harm? Him and his circle of friends that also get rejected might say yes. But, my circle of friends would say dude needs to man up. So then, was there harm? Depends on who you ask, as it's usually the receiver that dictates what's harmful or not (whether or not it really is).
Chris Maunder wrote: So what do you guys think?
Methinks it's like nuclear fission. We figured out a way to make power plants from that don't pollute the atmosphere. But, of course, now we have nuclear bombs and some plants that cause radiation leaks. Power plants have gotten better about the radiation, but still, you win some you lose some and we can literally destroy the planet with this technology if we go into nuclear war.
Would the world be better off without nuclear energy? Dunno. But it happened and cannot unhappen. AI is going to be the same. And while some policing should be done on AI, is that person/entity doing the policing really wise enough to do it? It sure isn't the government. They screw up everything they touch. IMO, making sure AI is open source is our best bet to keep it under control. If anyone can complete with your tech (in theory) then the odds of you turning into the next Google monster are slimmer.
Edit: The future of tech will be less and less technical as machines start programming themselves. So, it'll be soft skills more so than source code that'll become the next nugget of IP. Happens with every industry. I'm sure soap was expensive when it first came out. Eventually, source code will be less revered as computers no longer need humans to handle the tech aspects of it. So, not sharing source code won't stop much anyway.
Jeremy Falcon
modified 1-Apr-24 17:50pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Edit: The future of tech will be less and less technical as machines start programming themselves. So, it'll be soft skills more so than source code that'll become the next nugget of IP. Happens with every industry. I'm sure soap was expensive when it first came out. Eventually, source code will be less revered as computers no longer need humans to handle the tech aspects of it. So, not sharing source code won't stop much anyway.
You're probably right, but I'm still gonna use assembly, C, and Rust and hack the matrix no matter what. 
-Sean
----
Fire Nuts
|
|
|
|
|
It's not about whether something is good and bad.
It's about which is more ethical. Is saying "I don't allow this to be used for bad things" or "This must be allowed to be used for anything, no matter how immoral, damaging or outright evil" more ethical?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I see little utility in the OSI's imprimantur. If I publish anything (open or closed source), I publish it under a licence that I feel comfortable with. If I don't want my code to be used by (for example) lawyers, that is my right.
My freely-available code may be less popular because of the restrictions, but as I'm not earning money from it, who cares?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a lot to say on this, particularly since the current set of AI-bro ethics is basically 'late-stage capitalism' (and this is coming from someone who likes conservative capitalism). I'm going to hold off on most of my thoughts for now.
(1) Regulation is coming. Biden has given federal US agencies 60 days (iirc) to hire a C-level AI officer to handle the ethics. As someone else has mentioned, I have very little faith that they will know what they are doing. You're not going to get competent C-levels in the government at government wages.
(2) Once your code is out in the open, REGARDLESS of your license restrictions, ne'er-do-wells are going to use it however they want. Full Stop.
(3) The biggest fight for ethics in AI will most likely not come from tech, but from Hollywood (imho).
That being said, I'm all for open source software. As you say, there is a LOT of good that comes from it. So you're really left with two choices, release it and come to terms with some people using it unethically, illegally, and immorally. Or don't release it. Personally, I'd release my code with my ethical 'code' attached. You've made your intentions known.
Back to (1) + 'late-stage capitalism': Regulation is sorely needed, and putting massive amounts of people out of work will shoot these companies in the feet. People don't have money == People ain't gonna buy your product.
-Sean
----
Fire Nuts
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World:
As one of the CP insider articles from today suggested, at least some have a more pressing concern. That they get to make some bucks from the usage.
|
|
|
|
|
I want the ability to restrict the use of my code based on ethical concerns, and licensing allows this. I have absolutely no faith in laws and regulations from the official sector, which are rife with regulatory capture and self-serving exemptions. The nasty examples that you listed are already generally prohibited. The real danger is abuse by the official sector.
Large open source projects are typically produced by multiple contributors. In that case, you have to decide whether you're comfortable with the existing license when deciding whether to contribute.
|
|
|
|
|
These last 2 statements seem contradictory to me
1.That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint
2.That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
?
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
They are presented as alternatives. Pick one.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
got it. for some reason I did not read it that way. Thanx to CP. it helps to hear many voices.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
It was a question:
Quote: What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World:
- That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint
- That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
i recognize i read out of context. i explained earlier. old farts have short term memory and read with less skill.
thanx, as i said CP helps. I missed it for about 2 weeks because illness. First thing I did was jump back in the lounge.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Given that a good percentage of any code base today is borrowed/adapted from different sites on the Internet (including open source code), I feel the question is more of Accountability.
The final Accountability (including ethical accountability) of any software should rest with the current owner, releaser of that software, and not be transferred to the various internet sources from where extracts were taken. In other words, the "buck stops" at the person/company which released such code into production, deployment.
As an open source developer i will be unaware of the possible use cases of my code 40 years hence. And i need to be insulated against possible misuse.
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: i need to be insulated against possible misuse.
Therein lies the rub.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OSI is talking about what defines open source. If a repository was restricted to use by people with the initials Q.C. there would be a lot of people who could not use it and calling it open source would be a stretch of the imagination.
As for putting ethical restrictions on software I would say only ethical people will respect it, the rest will use your code anyway and hope they do not get caught.
Personally if I felt strongly about something I would put in a disclaimer, rather than a licence clause. Something like: This code is not endorsed for use in cold blooded murder.
It makes the point without adding legal restrictions.
|
|
|
|
|
So would that suggest that morally you would be comfortable releasing code you knew could (and perhaps was) being used for Evil Purposes as long as you had a non enforceable "Don't use this for Evil Purposes" statement in the code?
At a practical level an expensive, water tight legally binding license is just as enforceable as your note in the minds of many, so I guess it comes down to:
Do you make a statement that has no teeth, or do you make a statement with teeth that will not really help the situation?
which reduces down to
Do you put the effort into a statement, knowing it will not actually help, or do you just mail it in?
Which is really
Do you put time and money into a statement as a statement unto itself, or just put a statement in so you can say you said "I told them not to"
This stuff is hard.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: This stuff is hard.
Only if you think idealism is attainable.
Is clean drinking water a good thing? What if the convenience of it coming out of a faucet makes it easier to water board someone?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
