2026-10-15 17:53 UTC
@mawhrin@circumstances.run @goedelchen@mastodontech.de @snaggen@mastodonsweden.se @jo@infosec.exchange @tante@tldr.nettime.org Right. He's calling us "irrational" for rejecting the "good code it produces" where that "good code" is actually an obfuscated, lossily-reproduced version of somebody else's code taken without their consent.
He's accusing of of being "irrational" for being unwilling to take part in that violation of the authors' consent.
Replies (1)
-
@lispi314@udongein.xyz 2026-10-15 17:57
@dalias@hachyderm.io @mawhrin@circumstances.run @goedelchen@mastodontech.de @snaggen@mastodonsweden.se @jo@infosec.exchange @tante@tldr.nettime.org Some of the training code was also malware or vulnerable. The slopware has no concept of intentionality (it has no concept of anything, it does not think) and may reproduce those mechanisms at any time, in ways which can be subtle but retain the patterns. Intentionality is the bare minimum one can ask of a contributor.