FaceDeer

Even completely disregarding the cryptocurrency angle, “content that harms the reputation of Codeberg” is wide open to all sorts of future arbitrary interpretation. It basically means “if a lot of people dislike your project we nuke it.” Who knows when a lot of people are going to end up disliking your project? Who decides which people’s opinion matter to Codeberg’s reputation? And it’s something that can change at any time.

Maybe some open-source Fediverse server’s code is being hosted on Codeberg, and then one day some big news story breaks about how it was being used as the server for some big child porn distribution ring or something like that. The server’s name is showing up in news articles about this. Does it now “harm Codeberg’s reputation” for it to continue being hosted there? Boom, gone. Through no action or intent by the server’s authors, through nothing they could control or anticipate.

What “new take?” I’m saying the same thing.

Ah well. You’ll declare me a troll regardless of what I say, the goal determines the interpretation. This is pointless.

Pretty sure they’re not users of Codeberg, and likely weren’t the ones who voted for this TOS change.

Well, maybe Microsoft did, given it makes Github look more appealing by comparison.

And these “rich and powerful” are using Codeberg projects for that? Not, say, LGBTQ+ people living in sanctioned countries who use cryptocurrency to buy HRT?

Cryptocurrencies are generally open protocols, usable by anyone. Both the rich and powerful and the poor and powerless. Much like open source in general. I’m sure Donald Trump and family make use of other open source projects in their various endeavours, should those be banned too?

Yeah, only “cryptobros” could be upset about an open source hosting site deciding to officially ban “anything they think makes them look bad”, and using an entire field of software development as an example apparently based on the popular misconception that it’s a scam. This certainly isn’t a sign that any other projects could abruptly find themselves on the wrong side of someone’s opinion of whether they’re “bad” someday.

You pruned off the last part of the sentence in what you quoted: “which makes it seem like cryptocurrency is inherently scammy.” Adds a bit of important context.

The interpretation that cryptocurrency projects are “harmful” is based on a popular position that misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency and its full range of uses.

Your obsession with stalking me keeps leading you to pouncing on comments with an “aha! Got him!” That leads you to misinterpret them in the worst possible light. Which is quite ironic given the situation this thread is actually about.

That’s not correct, and you should know better than to claim this.

This is my first exposure to Codeberg’s terms of service, why would you think I know more than what I’m seeing here and in the linked pages? I haven’t used them before (and almost certainly won’t now).

The text you quoted from my earlier comment has nothing to do with any of this, either. I’m not sure why you think it means anything in this context.

AI is wildly popular.

Wow. I’d ask whether you’ve ever been in any threads on this community about LLMs, but of course I’ve come to recognize your particular username fairly well at this point.

Sounds like they’re willing to ban anything “unpopular.” Not a good sign for serious development.

It’s still rather poorly worded, though. The ban is: “Content that harms the reputation of Codeberg, such as cryptocurrency related projects” which makes it seem like cryptocurrency is inherently scammy.

Edit: Looks like clarification is being asked for.

Because GitHub arbitrarily removes projects it’s okay if Codeberg does too? “They’re the same as GitHub” is not actually a great point in their favor.

It’ll also be a great way to take down projects you don’t like. Just accuse them of witchcraft.

You may not have tried out modern abliterated models. GPT-OSS is almost a year old now, I assume the abliterated version you tried was pretty old too? The technology has improved significantly, it’s much more focused on just targeting refusals. A well-abliterated model benchmarks basically the same as its original version these days.

That sort of censorship can be overcome in open-weight models through abliteration, fortunately. Essentially, the model is run through a test suite of instructions that it refuses to comply with and the patterns of activation in its weights are analyzed to find the commonalities that represent the general concept of “refusing to comply with instructions.” Those weights are then quieted, resulting in a model that generally doesn’t refuse. There’s a framework called “heretic” that automates the process.

Yeah. They’ll be out there in the rest of the world, which Americans can get them from.

Unless they want to go full authoritarian and close down their Internet with their own version of the Great Firewall, I guess. That would be ironic.

Do you think it’s likely the Trump administration will successfully ban cutting-edge Chinese AI models? Especially given how most of the world is not in fact under American jurisdiction?

I think part of the problem might be that it gets hard to make a model that’s both able to comprehend complex details of the world of its training data and also that’s had the training data crudely manipulated in inconsistent ways. You either get a model that’s “figured out” what you’re trying to conceal via other sources and inferences, or you get a model that’s just broken and dumb because it can’t reconcile the contradictions.

One may recall the incident where someone at X inserted some weird conspiracy theory about “white genocide” in South Africa into Grok’s system prompt, and Grok basically switched to malicious compliance mode - it wouldn’t shut up about it, inserting it into inappropriate discussions spontaneously, and when asked about it would look up sources and explain why this conspiracy theory was actually wrong. That was a system prompt, not training data, but I could see the same sort of thing happening to a model where all the information about what happened at Tienanmen Square had been excised from the training data. There would be a conspicuous absence of information. Conversations from its training data would end abruptly or skirt a specific time and place. News articles reference some change in how foreign powers viewed China at that date but never explain why. China’s policies themselves abruptly change around that time. It’d know something significant happened then but would have to fill in the blanks.

Perhaps better to just accept it and go with the approach of building censorship into the framework around the model instead.

Only a single mirror has been approved.

Even if all 50,000 were up, where do you think they’ll be aimed? Cities and other developed land, most likely. Last time something like this was proposed the plan was to replace streetlights with them, which would save electricity.

But people would rather get angry about “supervillains” I guess.

So there you go. That answers your question.

You may think there should be a federal agency whose job is to regulate light pollution from satellites, but there isn’t one. You may think there should be some kind of international body that is able to impose decisions on all the nations of the Earth, but there isn’t one - treaties are agreements between sovereign nations. And so the FCC approved this satellite, in accordance with the laws of the United States and in accordance with the treaties the United States has signed. Nothing underhanded or nefarious is happening here.

The article explains the answer to this very question.

This sort of “it doesn’t work and it has to be stopped” perspective baffles me. If it doesn’t work you don’t need to stop it, it’s going to stop itself.