@ianto_jones whereas I, the fool, donated and believed them that they wouldn't sell out to AI corps
There's a ML person on bsky who's just utterly convinced this is GREAT...and she's working on "keeping AI out of wikipedia"... by recruiting more human editors! Because of course! That's what they want. All that human labor for free!
I'm so angry about this.
In addition to all the other betrayals this is, I realized this morning that Wiki has always been one of those #solarpunk in real life models I held up of gifting economies where people help people, build knowledge, just for the love... and this... just utterly destroys that. And they're gaslighting everyone about it at the same time. It's disgusting.
@susankayequinn @crcollins could anyone explain the anger to me? I seem to be missing something.
The AI companies have been DDoSing Wikipedia for years, attacking the servers with constant crawling bots. Now they will get their own gate to the same content and leave Wikipedia alone, so that it will not suffer extra costs.
They will also pay extra for having this access.
What is wrong with that? Where is the betrayal of #solarpunk values?
Has Wikipedia agreed to host AI slop?
@alxd @susankayequinn @crcollins it is a problem because it *legitimizes* one of the most anti-envionmental and unethical technologies we have ever invented.
If you like the Nazi bar analogy, it's like inviting Nazis to hang out in the back room of the bar. Sure, there's no Nazis AT the bar, but you're still inviting them into the building. You're still tolerating them, or in this case worse, inviting them.
You might argue that you can't keep them out, that the Nazis might be less bad if you let them in, that if you use the resources you get from collaboration to subvert them it's justified, or that you can't survive if you refuse them.
There are lots of ways to rationalize tolerance of bad behavior, but if the behavior is bad enough people will be justifiably upset when you announce you've decided to accept it.
I think the difference is whether you accept the rationalizations of the circumstances as justified, or not. Many of us do not.
@ravelin @susankayequinn @crcollins legitimization is a good argument, I agree.
Still, my [technical] understanding is that the load from the scrapers is a serious threat for Wikipedia long-term and the legitimization is just the lesser evil here, not something worth condemning.
Rather... a sad necessity.
@alxd @susankayequinn @crcollins it's a hard and subjective thing to discern the line between a "sad necessity" and an unacceptable compromise.
I think it's important to remember though that the spirit of #solarpunk in particular is about rejecting the forced compromises that undermine our shared future. To do that we have to be willing to ask if there is another way forward that doesn't compromise our values.
@alxd @susankayequinn @crcollins they've given in to the protection racket.
I understand why they have. Nobody has the power to help them get out of it. It probably feels very much like they have no choice.
People donated time, effort and expertise to make Wikipedia better. They wanted to build something good and free, for the benefit of mankind. And their work is now being sold to slop gangsters who are hell bent on destruction.
I haven't yet worked out how I feel about it, but I can certainly understand why some folks are upset.
@jetlagjen @susankayequinn @crcollins I personally feel that this is the whole "scarcity mindset".
By having AIs pay for the access no one is losing the free access, we are only extending it.
Yes, the Wikipedia Foundation's hand was forced, but the decision is not morally wrong.
> And their work is now being sold to slop gangsters who are hell bent on destruction.
Protection racket would suggest that the gangster doesn't pay you, but that you pay the gangster.
@alxd @jetlagjen @susankayequinn @crcollins
It's not just that. Theres also a feeling that libertarian ideals in say, free software, are at odds with moral ideals which would allow the exclusion of bad actors from benefiting from group resources
In free software we're not allowed to restrict access. Billionaires abuse our free labour all the time. This does not make everyone happy
Though it would be funny if the ai version of Wikipedia contained a bunch of poison. Easier to do that now too 😉
@susankayequinn now I feel quite smug about ignoring their donation solicitation at the end of the year.
@ianto_jones whereas I, the fool, donated and believed them that they wouldn't sell out to AI corps
There's a ML person on bsky who's just utterly convinced this is GREAT...and she's working on "keeping AI out of wikipedia"... by recruiting more human editors! Because of course! That's what they want. All that human labor for free!
