Please stop externalizing your costs directly into my face

I'm pretty sure:

"I have to review our mitigations several times per day to keep that number from getting any higher. When I do have time to work on something else, often I have to drop it when all of our alarms go off because our current set of mitigations stopped working. ... it’s not long before we’re complaining about the bots and asking if the other has cracked the code to getting rid of them once and for all."

means that no one has managed it.

> I never asked/consented for this.

You put it on the information super highway baby

Between Microsoft and Google, my existence AND presence as a community open source developer is being scraped and stolen.

I've been trying to write a body of audio code that sounds better than the stuff we got used to in the DAW era, doing things like dithering the mantissa of floating-point words, just experimental stuff ignoring the rules. Never mind if it works: I can think it does, but my objection holds whether it does or not.

Firstly, if you rip my stuff halfway it's pointless: without the coordinated intention towards specific goals not corresponding with normally practiced DSP, it's useless. LLMs are not going to 'get' the intention behind what I'm doing while also blending it with the very same code I'm a reaction against, the code that greatly outnumbers my own contributions. So even if you ask it to rip me off it tries to produce a synthesis with what I'm actively avoiding, resulting in a fantasy or parody of what I'm trying to make.

Secondly, suppose it became possible to make it hallucinate IN the relevant style, perhaps by training exclusively on my output, so it can spin off variations. That's not so far-fetched: _I_ do that. But where'd the style come from, that you'd spend effort tuning the LLM to? Does it initiate this on its own? Would you let it 'hallucinate' in that direction in the belief that maybe it was on to something? No, it doesn't look like that's a thing. When I've played with LLMs (I have a Mac Studio set up with enough RAM to do that) it's been trying to explore what the thing might do outside of expectation, and it's hard to get anything interesting that doesn't turn out to be a rip from something I didn't know about, but it was familiar with. Not great to go 'oh hey I made it innovate!' when you're mistakenly ripping off an unknown human's efforts. I've tried to explore what you might call 'native hallucination', stuff more inherent to collective humanity than to an individual, and I'm not seeing much facility with that.

Not that people are even looking for that!

And lastly, as a human trying to explore an unusual position in audio DSP code with many years of practice attempting these things and sharing them with the world around me only to have Microsoft try to reduce me to a nutrient slurry that would add a piquant flavor to 'writing code for people', I turn around and find Google, through YouTube, repeatedly offering to speak FOR me in response to my youtube commenters. I'm sure other people have seen this: probably depends on how interactive you are with your community. YouTube clearly trains a custom LLM on my comment responses to my viewers, that being text they have access to (doubtless adding my very verbose video footnotes) to the point that they're regularly offering to BE ME and save me the trouble.

Including technical explanations and helpful suggestions of how to use my stuff, that's not infrequently lies and bizarro world interpretations of what's going on, plus encouraging or self-congratulatory remarks that seem partly drawn from known best practices for being an empty hype beast competing to win the algorithm.

I'm not sure whether I prefer this, or the supposed promise of the machines.

If it can't be any better than this, I can keep working as I am, have my intentionality and a recognizable consistent sound and style, and be full of sass and contempt for the machines, and that'll remain impossible for that world to match (whether they want to is another question… but purely in marketing terms, yes they'll want to because it'll be a distinct area to conquer once the normal stuff is all a gray paste)

If it follows the path of the YouTube suggestions, there will simply be more noise out there, driven by people trying to piggyback off the mindshare of an isolated human doing a recognizable and distinct thing for most of his finite lifetime, with greater and greater volume of hollow mimicry of that person INCLUDING mimicry of his communications and interpersonal tone, the better to shunt attention and literal money to, not the LLMs doing the mimicking, but a third party working essentially in marketing, trying to split off a market segment they've identified as not only relevant, but ripe for plucking because the audience self-identifies as eager to consume the output of something that's not usual and normal.

(I should learn French: that rant is structurally identical to an endlessly digressive French expostulation)

Today I'm doing a livestream, coding with a small audience as I try for the fourth straight day to do a particular sort of DSP (decrackling) that's previously best served by some very expensive proprietary software costing over two thousand dollars for a license. Ideally I can get some of the results while also being able to honor my intentions for preserving the aspects of the audio I value (which I think can be compromised by such invasive DSP). That's because my intention will include this preservation, these iconoclastic details I think important, the trade-offs I think are right.

Meanwhile crap is trained on my work so that a guy who wants money can harness rainforests worth of wasted electrical energy to make programs that don't even work, and a pretend scientist guru persona who can't talk coherently but can and will tell you that he is "a real audio hero who's worked for many years to give you amazing free plugins that really defy all the horrible rules that are ruining music"!

Because this stuff can't pay attention, but it can draw all the wrong conclusions from your tone.

And if you question your own work and learn and grow from your missteps to have greater confidence in your learned synthesis of knowledge, it can't do that either but it can simultaneously bluster with your confidence and also add 'but who knows maybe I'm totally wrong lol!'

And both are forms of lies, as it has neither confidence nor self-doubt.

I'm going on for longer than the original article. Sorry.

It wouldn't have to go that deep. If we made not following robots.txt illegal in certain jurisdictions, and blocked all IP addresses not from those jurisdictions, then there would presumably have to be an entity in those jurisdictions, such as a VPN provider, an illegal botnet, or a legal botnet, and you pursue legal action with those.

The VPNs and legal botnets would be heavily incentivized to not allow this to happen (and presumably already are doing traffic analysis), and illegal botnets should be shutdown anyway (some grace in the law about being unaware of it happening should of course be afforded, but once you are aware it is your responsibility to prevent your machine from committing crimes).

Yeah I totally agree, I also run phi4 mini locally and was thoroughly impressed. The genie is out of the bottle.

I didn’t mention IP at all in my post. You can globally rate limit anonymous requests for everything (except maybe your login endpoint), if that’s the thing that makes sense for you.

The nice thing about the proof-of-work approach is that it can be backgrounded for users with normal browsers, just like link prefetching.

Dark forest but the very thing we fear could destroy our internet gated communities is big tech/tech companies

It sounds reasonable, and i'm not joking

> Meta used a "laptop and a client tuned to seed as minimally as possible to torrent 81TBs of copyrighted material" to train their models.

Frankly, as a person committing copyright infringement 24/7 I have no problem with that. Especially with them releasing the weights.