Here's a fun AI story: a security researcher noticed that large companies' AI-authored source-code repeatedly referenced a nonexistent library (an AI "hallucination"), so he created a (defanged) malicious library with that name and uploaded it, and thousands of developers automatically downloaded and incorporated it as they compiled the code:
https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/28/ai_bots_hallucinate_software_packages/
1/
@alttexthalloffame No, I will continue to do so because the alternative is to risk $150,000 copyright charges at the hands of predatory copyleft trolls:
@pluralistic "I did that in multiple places: both in the Twitter thread and in the alt text of the image."
Why is it necessary to do both? I am not seeing anything online about attribution being required as part of alt text, only that it's present. (Happy to be corrected.)
@pluralistic I'd love to hear @Gargron's thoughts on this.
https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/112118260677357857
"Content created by others must be attributed"
Sounds like we might need to add a new field separate from alt text?
Only about a third of images have description (as per @AltTextHealthCheck), and who knows how much of that is actually usable. That's really bad.
@alttexthalloffame @Gargron @AltTextHealthCheck
IMO - as an avid caption writer - the most useful thing would be a field in IMAGES (e.g. EXIF) that could contain the descriptions and maintain them between services. My workflow is farcically complex and tracking descriptions across days is just a bridge too far, but if I could embed the description in the image so that it was available wherever I posted the image, that would be huge.
sounds like <cite>...</cite>
and not necessarily same as copyright holder.
@lukethelibrarian @pluralistic @alttexthalloffame @Gargron @AltTextHealthCheck
Cory Doctorow
Alt Text Hall of Fame
Luke Rosenberger
matt