Florian

@lina@vt.social actually attribution might still be a major hurdle, you can totally supply all the attribution strings for your training corpus with the model, but is it really attribution if you can't point to where in the model a specific persons work is encoded (which you can't obviously)?

@lina@vt.social just considering the LLM itself as a derivative work, wouldn't it be legal to train one on CC BY-SA or GPL text as long as the weights are released under the same license? (Which wouldn't seem like a big deal for those "open" models)

@TechConnectify@mas.to thanks so much for the video, particularly the lather half. I do feel the need to comment on the section on photovoltaics recycling though. I'm far from an expert on this, but I do have the privilege of research proposals in this field crossing my desk every now and then and having occasional contact with the wonderful people at Fraunhofer ISE, among others. For everything except the aluminium frame, recycling is significantly complicated by the fact that the adhesive used is a resin which can't easily be molten/dissolved. Right now the state of the art is to just shred the glass with everything adhered to it and use it as concrete fill. The one exception ist that there's a bit of a scramble to capture the silver contained in the solder of panels manufactured during the first boom years of photovoltaics which are starting to age out, but as I understand that comes at the cost of wasting the other materials. Theres lots of cool research in this field: how to manufacture for recycling, how to melt the cells and electrolyze the impurities out if the silicon, etc. But were still pretty far away from having anything like a circular economy for photovoltaics.

@anselmschueler@ieji.de @glyph@mastodon.social I do have a similar feeling of unease here. I think the fundamental problem is that we generally want our communities (and societies at large) to be inclusive of as many ideologies and world views as possible², but substantial clashes in ethics will be inevitable. Its easy⁵ to exclude people like dhh or lunduke for their active contempt and hatred for other humans, but with @geerlingguy@mastodon.social after reading the blog posts³ in question and without any further indication to the contrary I am willing to believe that to him this is actually a matter of faith and not for example primarily motivated by trying to justify patriarchal power. For me prioritizing some clump of a few thousand cells over the well being of an actual person is absurd. However coming from the fundamental Belief that there is some kind of "soul" bestowed on every human at conception the argument for why abortion is immoral is perfectly coherent⁴. My worldview does not include any Gods or souls, but I can't prove their absence either¹, so its not like there is any objective truth to rely on here. For me denying a woman an abortion is an appalling violation of someones bodily autonomy at the best of times and it only gets worse when you pile on things like the additional trauma from having to birth the child of your rapist or see it in the context of the general objectification of womens bodies by a patriarchical society. If you do derive the value of a human being from their soul and believe an embryo has one, none of that matters because an abortion is still murder. The stakes here are way to high to just agree to disagree, but I don't have a practical solution either. If I refused to associate with anyone I have major moral disagreements with that would affect anyone from many vegans to people who believe they have nothing to hide. I don't know how we can build healthy communities (which particularly in the case of open source are also inherently part of a political project) in light of this. I totally understand why one wouldn't want to work with geerling, but i don't think boycotting everyone who has some shitty takes is really practical either. Full Disclosure to my background: Im a guy and was raised in a reasonably christian catholic/protestant family 1: and I would be highly suspicious of anyone who claims they can 2: Both as a matter of practicality and from putting an inherent value in diversity (which is ultimately also ideological, but something i agree with) 3: they do read as primarily theological discussions aimed at convincing other catholics and don't talk about things like legislative action (although if you agree with his conclusions seeing a moral imperative to use coercion of force to prevent women from getting an abortion wouldn't be far fetched) 4: for the most part. Putting a big X to doubt on things like natural contraception being more effective than condoms 5: or sadly should be rather

@kernellogger ig @c3isdn does not count as a production environment 🙃