While we have written before in a dedicated news-entry here nothing has clearly changed therefore on our stance towards rejecting generative, large language algorithms and neuronal networking. As before we can only warn about the consequences, underline that no concrete model works without data not ever being enumerated on ethical and reasonable moral grounds. First and foremost you may ask: What does this mean in daily basis? Let's have a look on AI- and LLM-scraper or better also "crawler" bot-services (Link for more information). Yes, those do exactly exist and those also do a tremendous harm as using doubtful methods to enumerate data from websites. You think they are just a minor crawler-agent running to grab meta-information from a website? Please think again: We talk here about neuronal networking, about data not just being saved but being set into a logical relation and that meant also iterative behavior. So these crawler-bots return for sure more than only once or for a short amount of time on a regular basis. They are returning even more than once a day, perhaps even more than once in an hour and a minute, grabbing all data possible for further computing logical relations and getting data for training the algorithms.
You may now think: No problem, let us lock them out. Really that easy? No, but because of this we see now more and more websites using projects to prevent and possibly stop named crawlers the amount of JavaScript-implementations have risen even more while there was no need before. And yes, we know how this sounds. Please ask again: What does this mean for you when JavaScript-code is executed everytime again at a request from you towards a webserver running services and data? Do you have control over the all sources data is called into to display the websites you seem just to view? Look behind the curtain and look who asks for the data. Yes, we know that parts of the current Hyperbola-website is also using JavaScript. We are reworking this to reduce this more and more. Nevertheless we are just starting here and now a journey to tell you about projections and dangers.
Do you think "others" can protect you? Yes, we were told that free software has a reasonable course to protect users and their data. It could be audited more easily, can be reviewed, can be changed, can be reworked. But in our current times the wording has gotten more vague as too many people just call this open-source. Is this enough? Here the question again: Do you think when somebody grants you the opportunity to view into the source-code or just parts of it, this is enough? Do you question the license? What about just weak permissive licensing where everyone is allowed to use the sources, but never share back modifications? What about misusage then? When companies just use shared sources and implement them into their own projects, but never share back anything while clearly having this in the public? We are not talking here about modified versions just one person is using for the own purpose and look on hard- and software in the public to be used from uncountable groups and individuals. There are enough examples of organizations, groups and projects pretending to protect and guarantee the freedom of users. But ask yourself: Is this a common purpose freedom? Or just a personal one, where everyone is left with an own definition, where also complete groups of people, whole countries are not part of the perspective?
And then ask again: Where is the data coming from those large language models (LLM) are using even when marked as ethical distributed? Is the buzzword big data not even stating the problem itself? Where do "we" as mankind think to control the data and where are we just controlled by the own spirit we have called out? We have opened up a generic problem being described in literature as Pandora's box following up a myth telling about a box handed over to the person named Pandora, whose instructions stated that it must not be opened, and were then ignored, leading to disastrous consequences. Therefore we clearly use this comparison now and here to describe the situation we are all into. The majority is for the moment not to recognize the issue here, same as with the publications from Edward Snowden about mass surveillance. Did those change something in the behaviour of us as mankind? Did we change our perspective towards services and data being called, demanded and saved? Or in the opposite: Did we question also the whole scenario as we do not need role-models and stating individuals to heroes and heroines? The more something changes, the more it can be made sure nothing is changing at all. But this now does not need to mark the end here. Yes, you can now jump over the shortened information that Hyperbola is - again - opposing something or everything. That's for sure one perspective but not the one summarizing our stance and intention: We underline the callout that we need technical emancipation, we need hardware being possible to be modified, repaired and under the full control of its users, never doing anything aside from its users. We need full free and libre firmware, drivers and sources without accessing binary large objects others have under control. Yes, this marks a niche perhaps and we understand this for sure. But we also just want that everyone reading takes something with, also without using Hyperbola as operating-system: Be critical, be also self-confident, be on your own and protect your data. When you have information validated and clearly based on facts, help others to understand them. Sometimes two times more explaining is one individual less being misused and that's a good course. Remember that rejection of large language-models is nothing bad, not getting on fallacies marked through buzzwords also and we can also work as society without role-models, with figurines failing later on. We are all beings, we are not perfect but we are able to learn. Let's approve this point, shall we?