Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
trashHeap :hehim: :verified_gay:@trashheap@tech.lgbt (2026-10-15 20:49:55)
@bkuhn @cwebber
Maybe ive been reading too much into some words; or maybe Ive misunderstood.
BUT some of your conversations and comments on LLMs to me and others have had a distinct "attribution is going to be fucked in a post-LLM world, the best we can hope for is to preserve copyleft" vibe to it.
I would be hard pressed to find an example in our own comment history; as my toots self destruct after a few months. BUT it's definitely come up.
Anyway; am I wrong in that sentiment? Do you think there is a way forward with some of these LLM concerns preserving attribution?
---Reply---
Bradley M. Kühn@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org (2026-10-15 20:55:21)
@trashheap
If a statement I made seemed like I said that, I either misspoke or it was misquoted. (Also, I wouldn't have 🤬'd making a point like this in any event.)
My position is instead that enforcement of attribution requirements **by themselves** (without other copyleft provisions to provide scaffolding) has always been extremely difficult to nearly impossible in real world contexts. #LLMGenAI may make the problem more acute, but the problem has always been there.
Cc: @cwebber
#LLM #AI
Reply
---Replies---
trashHeap :hehim: :verified_gay:@trashheap@tech.lgbt (2026-10-15 20:56:46)
@bkuhn @cwebber Sorry I did not mean to indicate that was a direct quote (thus the word vibe, following it.) BUT that was the impression ive been getting from following much of your and cwebber's conversations on the subject; and from some comments youve sent my way.