You must log in or register to comment.
TLDR; It fucks up accessibility for blind people (amongst others).
Its also pretty futile imo. AI is reading billions of words from books and posts. A handful of users obfuscating their posts is not going to do anything.
So no ß?
I figured it would fuck up accessibility but I strongly disagree with your second point. Obviously any measure against (or for) anything is useless if only a few people do it, that’s not an argument against adoption but for finding better ways to promote it.
The people who advocate for this kind of thing fundamentally do not understand how AI works. Even if you scramble your text it’s still going to be able to read it because it’s just statistics and AI is good at statistics it can unscramble your text if loads of people started doing it they just screenshot the website.
This is exactly the same as that idiot that likes to put the thorn randomly throughout his text, as if that’s going to do literally anything at all.
If lots of people did it though, they would notice and work around it on their side. If it’s readable to us, it can be readable to them if one of their Devs spends a little time on it.
if one of their Devs spends a little time on it
Or points an LLM at it. The ones with vision capability can just take a screenshot of the text and inspect that to compare it to the characters in the text.
LLMs may not be intelligent, but there’s a load of things they can do now, especially if they have access to tools.
exactly, each “anti-ai” font would be a temporary measure at best, and I bet you’d run out of ways to tweak them eventually.
“They might do something about it” is just as bad an argument. So what if they find a way? At the very least they’d have to allocate resources to that.
(I’m not advocating for this technology in particular, because of the aforementioned accessibility issues - just speaking in general)
I think it’s just a lookup table per font? Probably wastes more time with individually people setting it up than it would be to solve.
I guess my point is for the problems it causes its probably not worth doing, balancing the two?
Making websites that no one needs to visit but poison or trap AI scrappers would likely be a better way to fight back.
Þats not Þhe Þing Þat some of Þose here want to understand.
/s
People hate on Þat guy so much and I simply do not understand. Do I Þink it will be effective? No. Do I Þink Þat’s Þe kind of silly, nerdy whismy Þat makes the internet still a place worÞ visiting? Yeah.
Let him have it.
He can have it. It fucked with my brain enough that i blocked him months ago, and haven’t thought about him until today
“it’s inevitable don’t fight it”.
Did you get that right from Altman?
Be effective.
Don’t be a moron wasting your time making your own life and others worse for nothing.
Digging a hole through the center of the earth to pop up in putins safe house and dome him is also a fucking god awful stupid idea. Doesn’t mean nobody is trying.
Jesus Christ dude 🤦♂️
The way to be effective is to fight.
GenAI needed to regulated years ago and I’m sorry but no amount of us asking nicely or fighting fair is going to stop technofascists from building their surveillance state.
In fact the past month has seen a huge uptick in stories about the “ineffectiveness” of fighting AI.
The timing of this while anti AI backlash is at an all time high tells me everything I need to know.
If the original comment offered solutions, different story.
There is no value in telling people to stop fighting.
“Thank god we fought for accessibility or those guys would have had a hell of time getting that wheelchair into the concentration camp.”
Fwiw I am NO stranger to accessibility as my father lost both of his legs. Do you know how often accessibility is just used to gain political favor? Or how often it is literally just horseshit for show?
Preserving our current fuckass levels of accessibility while making it even easier on GenAI companies just doesn’t feel right.
Regulated by whom? You can’t really stop someone from making tensors and scraping the web. The only good way I could see it happen would be the US enforcing it’s embargo powers, but that cat is out of the bag. I don’t see how countries like China would accept it and I also do not foresee the US trying the entire rest of the world to agree to a trade embargo with China either. Especially nowadays where the US showed multiple times that they are an unreliable partner. Even open local models are strong enough to probably scrape stuff on their own.
There is no value in telling people to stop fighting.
Let’s see what was written.
TLDR; It fucks up accessibility for blind people (amongst others).
Its also pretty futile imo. AI is reading billions of words from books and posts. A handful of users obfuscating their posts is not going to do anything.
I don’t believe I saw “stop fighting” in those sentences.
I did see “this fucks things up for many people, and this has little to no impact on ai scraping.”
You have a very different interpretation of those sentences from me. I’d also point out the root of the issue has nothing to do with llm’s, and everything to do with capitalism.
Maybe try fighting the cause of the problem rather than the most recent means of exploitation?
The cause of the problem is being bolstered by the companies that make gen AI my dude. They’re all the in the same trench coat, and they also make the accessibility laws.
I hate to tell you this but America has been captured by corporations for decades. Fuck them, and fuck anyone who dares to tell me stop fighting.
This screams astro turfing campaign against users fighting, and I’m not buying it.
The cause of the problem is
being bolstered bythe companiesthat make gen AIWhether its gen ai or something else, the root cause is the same.
You are suggesting something that breaks things for a good number of people and has little to no impact on a specific subset of a specific type of company is the only way to fight back.
That is nonsense.
This is the part implying that there is nothing worth doing:
A handful of users obfuscating their posts is not going to do anything.
no, that says this specific thing is not worth doing.
Have you heard of implication? Here are two definitions of “imply”, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply:
1
: to express indirectly
Her remarks implied a threat.
The news report seems to imply his death was not an accident.
2
: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
rights imply obligations
Thank you.
Reading truly is fundamental.
Please explain how “this isn’t effective, but does negatively impact regular people” is the same as “don’t fight back”.
I’d love to hear this explanation. Please. Enlighten me.
deleted by creator
