@Gargron your employee @Claire uses ChatGPT to write code for Mastodon, also steals my own code without proper attribution as required by my MIT license. Then posts exposing this fiasco are deleted by someone w/ control of the Mastodon organization account: https://elonsucks.org/@adam/110811483099354406
Of course you would laugh about AI & copyright violation 🙄
I wouldn't be surprised if Claire didn't copy your code directly from your repo.
It might have been copied by chatgpt. If this is the case, this would be a good example as to why people should avoid "AI"
@Haijo7@Gargron@Claire that's certainly possible, however I noticed many of her PRs would closely mirror my own commits, so imo it's more likely she stalks my commits, (plus the fact it came from my 2nd most popular repo)
@adam@Haijo7@Gargron@Claire you're mistaken here, on looking into this I can confirm that unfortunately this is a complete coincidence of similar commit messages (which use fairly common terms). In terms of your comments in GitHub, we have a CoC for all of our projects and I do not believe that your behaviour there met the expected standards.
@andypiper@Haijo7@Gargron@Claire And also, to confirm, your stance is this: even though https://elonsucks.org/@Claire@sitedethib.com had never ever followed the convention [Updates to Hash] as proven in her commit history https://github.com/glitch-soc/mastodon/pull/2339, it is a coincidence that she copies this convention from my contributor to the repo she also coiped the refresh method from, simply because it is common to others, yet she did not use until within hours of my contributor doing the same...? This is your logic?
@andypiper Why do you possess direct knowledge this single example of many unrevealed instances of theft in fact was not theft, despite the evidence pointing to the obvious contrary? What makes your "knowledge" the truth? Can you be more detailed than the vague & baseless assertions you've been making? (Your word simply being uttered != truth)
@thomholwerda@Gargron@Claire@osnews the peculiar thing, I gave ample notice and Eugen still won't respond (nor undelete the posts) as if hiding it is more convenient than accepting my proposal (apologize and I grant permission to re-use any/all my code/logic without permission in perpetuity).
Instead, it looks like I will have to prepare a legal case and start my press campaigning up again...
@adam@Gargron@Claire@osnews It's also not like the MIT license (or really any OSS license for that matter) is hard to abide by. Mistakes are still easily made though, but it seems you've been patient and gracious - more than you'd need to be.
I love Mastodon, but I love respecting open source licenses even more. It's what open source is built on.
@thomholwerda@adam@Gargron@Claire@osnews as someone with 20 years experience in OSS, and as a supporting member of the OSI, I agree with you that it is vital ro respect licenses. The suggestions made here are unfortunately not accurate and the commit in this case is a coincidence, not related.
@andypiper@thomholwerda@Gargron@Claire@osnews But why is it a coincidence is the question. You can't just say things w/o reason. Simply touting lengthy experience is not reason. Why is it coincidence someone who never followed a certain convention, does it within hours of a contributor to a certain repo does? Why is it coincidence this repo even contains same methods as ones in her PRs? (I have many more examples btw, they will be for my lawyers not you, just curious what your defense is)
@adam you are the person that continues to reference lawyers, so, I have made my statements to you, the format of the commit message was a coincidence. I work on the project. I work with Claire. I will not be continuing this conversation here. I'm sorry that you are so frustrated by what you believe has happened here.
@andypiper Indeed I am the person that referenced lawyers. You suggest you with nothing to hide will not reveal what gives you God-like powers to determine what was stolen or not, because my lawyers will use it against you in court, correct?
@andypiper I don't believe you have ever been more vague in any post you've made that will be any clearer in email. If you can't state the reason you possess your unbelievable knowledge, then you need time to come up with an explanation, so your credibility becomes more and more shot btw
@adam@andypiper@Gargron@Claire@osnews Might be a good idea to note this in a timeline somewhere, like in a blog post, instead of individual toots. It's quickly getting unwieldy which could cause unwarranted confusion on top of the actual issue at hand. 🤷♀️
@andypiper@thomholwerda But what do you have to hide? Why can't you simply state what gives you the omnipotent power of possessing absolute knowledge a coincidence occurred, contrary to my evidence proving this is highly unlikely to be true?
@adam@thomholwerda I claim no omnipotent power. I am a contributor to a project and freelance employee of the non-profit, with direct knowledge of the sequence of events. I have nothing to hide. That is all.
@andypiper@thomholwerda ok what is this direct knowledge you speak of? Can you be specific? You know the actions that occurred are conicidences because _____ (fill in the blank, otherwise you are speaking like a God that just knows things without reason)
@adam@thomholwerda because I work with Claire, we talked about this, I can see (and have been told) that the iframe in her code is not for keepalive or refresh reasons, and there is inconsistency in the timings of the commits you suggest are copies. Our CoC expects respectful behaviour from all participants so comments making accusations may be moderated.
@andypiper@thomholwerda what are you talking about, the first line in the first file changed is literally refresh_interval: '30s'. It's obviously to refresh just like my invisible iframe does.
What do you mean by "inconsistency in the timings of the commits" can you be specific instead of vague as usual? Outright state what the probleem is
Re: CoC in what way is it disrespectful to give notice copyright has been violated? Also who deleted the posts? Finally why was it not hidden instead
@andypiper it doesn't say that at all but regardless who you think authored it, they both share culpability and are equally stalking me (Eugen started presenting a fake anti-Elon aura after I emailed him about listing my server)
@adam we may have a different view of the repo in that case, based on roles. I see this, which does separate author and committer. As you say, you consider this a shared issue, so I don't think this image will help you.
@andypiper indeed you are not being helpful by presenting images that confirm my two stalkers are cooperating in leeching chatgpt.js while avoiding my previous questions to be unanswered
@adam@andypiper It does seem rather suspicious, but I'm no developer and certainly have no experience with coding for Mastodon, so if there's no official response from Mastodon anywhere else I'd eventually just present both sides and let my extremely technical and experienced developer audience make the calls for themselves.
They wouldn't just blindly listen to me anyways. 😅
@andypiper@thomholwerda Andy no one needs your permission to write blog posts, telling someone it's not "required" won't stop them (you actually encouraged me more now). The more you try to object the more suspicious you look, you must realize this at some point...
@adam@thomholwerda look Adam, I can see you're very upset, I have given you all of the information and I don't know how I can make you happy or stop posting at me, so I'm going to step back now. Thank you and I apologise for the frustration you are feeling around this.
@andypiper@thomholwerda Now that I look back, surely you must have misinterpreted his post https://elonsucks.org/@thomholwerda@social.tchncs.de/110813780657797787 to be directed at you to make such a strange assertive statement. He is telling me (not you) blog is good idea to form timeline for my case (because my timeline proves many "coincidences" occur when it comes to Claire, something you insist is the case without evidence like I've provided)
@andypiper@thomholwerda Also the way you talk down on people is not a good look for mastodon. I don't know if Eugen put you up to this, but you're not exactly making the company look more innocent
@adam@thomholwerda I'm sorry that you think I'm talking down to you, that is not my intent, I wanted to engage with you and explain our position. I don't want to do that for the whole of my day, when I've made the points I had. I absolutely respect you and your work as a coder.
@andypiper@thomholwerda if you respect me prove it, undelete my posts in which I've explained means no disrespect either (if you cannot then the obvious motive is at play)
@adam@thomholwerda I cannot do that because I am not an admin on that specific repository, there is no "obvious motive" on my side. That is the truth and a fact and I'm sorry that I can't undo that.
@andypiper@thomholwerda So it is a truth and a fact that it is disrespectful to give notice someone infringed on copyright? And this is your opinion, or Eugen told you that? I'm confused
@adam@thomholwerda I have not spoken with Eugen today. This is all me. I'm talking to you myself, because I wanted to explain what had happened. I'm now replying to an email from a third-party app developer about something unrelated. I will then go on to do some GitHub triaging for the documentation.
@andypiper@thomholwerda not sure why you're telling me your day's plans, can you just answer my 1st question (I swear this is like a dental appointment)
@Gargron
It would be funny... but also terrifying.
Copyright is entirely the wrong tool to go against AI to be honest.
It's already an out of control, over the top institution geared towards sustaining the middlemen instead of the actual creators, so if it is adjusted for AI... it will also be enabled to go against "learning", fair use, etc etc.
@Gargron I'm thinking sabotage. If enough of us put enough effort into prompt engineering we can get all the LLMs to reply to all complex questions (answers > 4) with "A suffusion of yellow."
@Gargron Ironic indeed, but well you can't just go about and steal knowledge. The world is not free to steal and resell... it is very simple.
If you buy a book you need to pay for it, if you go to a library you need a subscription for access. If you use someone's copyrighted or patented ideas, then please pay for these.
Why do they even think they can get away with this...
@Gargron As much as I hate copyright law, if that is what it takes to restrict robotics and AI from replacing us, so be it. At least once, copyright law will have served a purpose for the common good.
@Gargron and, I guess one could even instigate such a thing by poisoning all the major LLMs with the best-defended IP (Marvel, Star Wars) from the most litigious companies (Disney, Sony, etc.). How one would go about doing that, I don't know. But, they're being pretty wanton about what they feed the models, so maybe it's not all that hard to do.
If one were so inclined, of course. Not that I would ever wish harm on the AI.
@Gargron The Butlerian Jihad was actually just a series of drawn out and particularly ugly litigations and everyone decided after the verdict ruled in favor of Disney that they never wanted to deal with the issue again.
Add comment