you talked about labor theft, why do you think the boss should pay you? An I am not saying “should” as society should be like that, I agree with no private property and no money -> should as right now is it OK or not to make money from other people works : this is exploitation.

I argue that the “steal” of today’s LLM is the same exploitation of worker as usually described, here outside the social contract of librism and free software.

Are you saying I am right then? I feel you think of something but it is not clearly getting to me here.

• it's labor theft -> hence the term steal I was using
• copying is irrelevant -> so I was right? the labor theft of big tech in order to sell LLM is wrong on many level and we should fight against it.

Do you at least see that, to me, what you just said is validating my points?

Also if anyone else (not to you @m532): “AI” (in reality chatbot or generative AI) should be made by the people for the people, and FOSS ideology (can we say Librism in English?) have always, and still mostly is, against the closed-source (close dataset to be precise here) nature of current big-tech AI. This was already a problem 8 years ago when the space started to get filled with “scientific” paper that didn’t disclose code/data (sometime just code but still insufficient) hence couldn’t be reproduce while sometimes having wild claims. We shouldn’t give so much credit, attention, money to those fascists in charge of selling as much LLM as possible, whatever human, economic and environment costs.

Actually let me analyze again your comment here: I thought you were right at first but thinking about it not really.

First let me address : I didn’t know about RIAA, this kind of paternalistic way of addressing people is not good in any way. We aren’t all USA-centric (like you?).

Then about the “steal” argument:

• it is a vocabulary used for century by Marxist organizations about the value taken by the bourgeoisie from the proletariat work.
• the argument of “copying is OK” is missing the point : any FOSS dev/organization I know would gladly give their work to you, individual. But not to big tech to commercialize it and make extreme amount of money, as well as steering conversation towards fascism in the process. While also having an amazingly big impact on the environment.
• “both have it afterwards” is also a fallacy : any work done on computer can be seen like this : if your an accountant and you boss copy your accounting sheets and do not pay you, it is not stealing? You both have the file, for you it won’t make you any money, he will. Big tech taking FOSS code for their profit is not piracy as of individual accessing cultural product they cannot afford in the first place. And if you make profit from piracy this is a whole other discussion I would gladly here your thoughts about it.

You’re right, I said “steal” as it was the most common word, the right one was “exploiting”. Fixing it.

Yes please do not make any argument and post memes with some interesting comments

When the topic is AI, the quality of some of these Lemmy threads drops down to the level of YouTube c omments.

Really helps.

was that supposed to be an argument against my explanation?

There’s nothing Marxist in that article. Only fallacies from rich white man ranting about people pushing back against fascism.

People say AI to mean LLM first because main stream western, fascist, media pushed the term by inviting exclusively non-expert and CEOs to talk about the subject. People are pushing back against a product that is mean to make workers dull and replace them by stealing their works even by capitalist standards -> exploiting their works, appropriating it to themselves without any compensation nor permission.

The article tried to paint the discussion as anti-llm would be anti technology, which is not Marxist in any way and not relevant. Weirdly enough fascist guy like the one on this article don’t talk about cryptocurrency as something we should chill for. Isn’t it a tool too?

Current LLM chill is the opposite of dialectical materialism: what is the concrete analysis here? LLM outputed nothing of value for years despite the hundred of billions invested. Worst it actually participate to global warming, bourgeoisie attempt to mass control, getting rid of workers and inflating computer costs. So the real consequences for people are losses only.

And for what? To get to have unskilled rich white people who can afford the awfully hight price of LLM to boats about “I made this” while it is actually made from steal and empoverish people and enriching tech lord’s.

So no, thanks, and trying to paint fallacies to Marxism isn’t going to help either.

EDIT: replace the “stealing” argument as pointed out -> https://lemmy.ml/post/54102413/28384201 , this can be confusing with the anti-piracy propaganda vocabulary.

Passkey is barely implemented, seriously we have GPG keys or ssh keys and big tech refuses to implement at least that. Instead they are pushing for their Product™ to sell.

Hardware solution could be nice but the market is stacked against any nice solution: I way a key I can backup, even emulate if I want too (having a purely digital copy). I don’t see the issue with ssh key in general.

ahem… https://lemmy.ml/c/antiai or https://lemmy.ml/c/AntiAI@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Yes you are right, damned! Why git isn’t signing the diff (patch)? This is so wrong on so many level, signing already hash the content, we can sign multiple GiB without any issue.

Indeed it is still relevant. I am wondering what does it sign for tags.

EDIT: Are you sure about that? signing the hash felt logical but digging about it this seems a false assumption. git is signing the whole commit object.

Security is achieved through other means.

Let’s explicit this: you can, and should, sign your commits if you want security (no commit tampering). You need to:

• generated a gpg key: gpg --full-generate-key
• set git to look for the public key to use: git config --global user.signingkey [public key ID]
• set git to sign your commits: git config --global commit.gpgsign true

Note that I used --global here but you can do without to sign on a per-project basis.

Also gpg UX is terrible, to find the [public key ID] use the command gpg --list-keys, it should looks like:

pub   ed25519 2026-01-01 [SC] <- type algorithm date and capability (this key is only to Sign and Certify)
      662E3CDD6FE329002D0CA5BB40339DD82B12EF16 <- Public key ID
uid           [ultimate] my full name (Master Key) <my_email@domain.com> <- owner information (should be your name and email address)
sub   rsa4096 2026-01-01 [E] <- sub key used to encrypt
sub   ed25519 2026-01-01 [S] [expires: 2027-01-01] <- subkey used to sign

Last, if you want to save/backup you keys the default location of gpg files is ~/gnupg or you can export keys with gpg --export [key ID] > path/to/file.key for the public part and gpg --export-secret-keys [private key ID] for the private part. Both export can have a -a or --armor argument to output as base64 text instead of raw binary. [private key ID] can be found with gpg --list-secret-keys.

EDIT: after writing this I checked https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Signing-Your-Work and TIL you can sign tags too.

EDIT 2: you can also use your ssh key to sign -> git config --global gpg.format ssh (I am less inclined to do this as you won’t have subkeys and expiration date but this would be simplier indeed)

Y combinator is deeply rooted in fascism, I’m trying to find the hacker-news post that shocked me about “going back to silicon-valley root: the military industry”. The “liberal-progressive” tone that can be read from commenters can soften the overall vibe but in the end the tone is definitely not great : last example for me was how the “stopomarchy” news was treated (flagged, and the comments smells very bad) : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661901

It’s been 2 years now that on top of this the vast majority of “news” are LLM related. And if you’re not into that this make the website not worth anything any more.