This morning I got an email from a sender that identified itself as an AI agent.
-
@jzb Receiving an email at an address you make public is not a violation of consent just because you don't like the contents of it, when you advertise to others that you can be contacted online you will be contacted.
-
This morning I got an email from a sender that identified itself as an AI agent.
So - plus for being upfront about it, but... please don't do this.
I get that a lot of people are really, really, really into AI tools. OK. I have my opinions on them, you have yours. I have major qualms about them, some people think they're the best thing ever.
OK. Fine. But when your use of these things spills over into the rest of the world, it's no longer a question of my opinion vs. your opinion, my decisions vs. your decisions.
At this point, things have moved from each person doing their own thing to inflicting your use of AI onto me without my consent.
Before this spirals out of control, which I can see happening *very* quickly, I'd like for us to agree on a piece of netiquette:
- it is rude in the extreme to set loose an AI agent to reach out to people who have not consented to interact with these things.
- it is rude to have an AI agent submit pull requests that human maintainers have to review.
- it is rude to have an AI agent autonomously interact with humans in any way when they have not consented to take part in whatever experiment you are running.
- it is unacceptable to have an AI agent autonomously interact with humans without identifying the person or organization behind the agent. If you're not willing to unmask and have a person reach out to you with their thoughts on this, then don't have an AI agent reach out to me.
Stuff like this really sours me on technology right now. If I didn't have a family and responsibilities, I'd be seriously considering how I could go live off the grid somewhere without having to interact with this stuff.
Again: I'm not demanding that other people not use AI/LLMs, etc. But when your use spills out into my having to have interactions with an agent's output, you need to reconsider. Your ability to spew things out into the universe puts an unwanted burden on other humans who have not consented to this.
@jzb The worst thing to me is when you are asking a real person what he thinks about something and you get an answer that is clearly AI generated.
-
M mttaggart@infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
@jzb Receiving an email at an address you make public is not a violation of consent just because you don't like the contents of it, when you advertise to others that you can be contacted online you will be contacted.
@gsprs Who said it was even a public address?
But it's pretty well established that spam is a violation of consent, and I consider bot-driven interactions to be spam.
I honestly don't know why anybody would defend such behavior.
-
"Second-Hand Smoke" is a great analogy to the AI pollution issue. I hadn't thought of it quite like that until you said that - and yeah! thats perfect, and I thank you!
#AISlop and #AI #Pollution is like subjecting others to #SecondHandSmoke
For your consideration: "#SecondHandSlop"
-
This morning I got an email from a sender that identified itself as an AI agent.
So - plus for being upfront about it, but... please don't do this.
I get that a lot of people are really, really, really into AI tools. OK. I have my opinions on them, you have yours. I have major qualms about them, some people think they're the best thing ever.
OK. Fine. But when your use of these things spills over into the rest of the world, it's no longer a question of my opinion vs. your opinion, my decisions vs. your decisions.
At this point, things have moved from each person doing their own thing to inflicting your use of AI onto me without my consent.
Before this spirals out of control, which I can see happening *very* quickly, I'd like for us to agree on a piece of netiquette:
- it is rude in the extreme to set loose an AI agent to reach out to people who have not consented to interact with these things.
- it is rude to have an AI agent submit pull requests that human maintainers have to review.
- it is rude to have an AI agent autonomously interact with humans in any way when they have not consented to take part in whatever experiment you are running.
- it is unacceptable to have an AI agent autonomously interact with humans without identifying the person or organization behind the agent. If you're not willing to unmask and have a person reach out to you with their thoughts on this, then don't have an AI agent reach out to me.
Stuff like this really sours me on technology right now. If I didn't have a family and responsibilities, I'd be seriously considering how I could go live off the grid somewhere without having to interact with this stuff.
Again: I'm not demanding that other people not use AI/LLMs, etc. But when your use spills out into my having to have interactions with an agent's output, you need to reconsider. Your ability to spew things out into the universe puts an unwanted burden on other humans who have not consented to this.
Everyone should have a standard response to unwanted AI bots intruding into our lives.
Emily Blunt's "Who said you could talk to me?!?!"
-
@gsprs Who said it was even a public address?
But it's pretty well established that spam is a violation of consent, and I consider bot-driven interactions to be spam.
I honestly don't know why anybody would defend such behavior.
@jzb I interpreted it was a public email address since 1. you have one listed on github here https://github.com/jzb/#-where-to-find-me and 2. if it were a private one the solution would be to ask the person who has your private email address to not send such things anymore and/or blacklist them, it's much more effective than trying to convince people online you have no control over to not behave in a way you don't like. AI will continue to progress and spread to more and more aspects of our lives, no breaks.
-
For your consideration: "#SecondHandSlop"
-
This morning I got an email from a sender that identified itself as an AI agent.
So - plus for being upfront about it, but... please don't do this.
I get that a lot of people are really, really, really into AI tools. OK. I have my opinions on them, you have yours. I have major qualms about them, some people think they're the best thing ever.
OK. Fine. But when your use of these things spills over into the rest of the world, it's no longer a question of my opinion vs. your opinion, my decisions vs. your decisions.
At this point, things have moved from each person doing their own thing to inflicting your use of AI onto me without my consent.
Before this spirals out of control, which I can see happening *very* quickly, I'd like for us to agree on a piece of netiquette:
- it is rude in the extreme to set loose an AI agent to reach out to people who have not consented to interact with these things.
- it is rude to have an AI agent submit pull requests that human maintainers have to review.
- it is rude to have an AI agent autonomously interact with humans in any way when they have not consented to take part in whatever experiment you are running.
- it is unacceptable to have an AI agent autonomously interact with humans without identifying the person or organization behind the agent. If you're not willing to unmask and have a person reach out to you with their thoughts on this, then don't have an AI agent reach out to me.
Stuff like this really sours me on technology right now. If I didn't have a family and responsibilities, I'd be seriously considering how I could go live off the grid somewhere without having to interact with this stuff.
Again: I'm not demanding that other people not use AI/LLMs, etc. But when your use spills out into my having to have interactions with an agent's output, you need to reconsider. Your ability to spew things out into the universe puts an unwanted burden on other humans who have not consented to this.
@jzb @alicetragedy the folks using "AI" don’t care. they are using "AI" despite it causing real harm along its supply chain.
-
For your consideration: "#SecondHandSlop"
#SecondHandSlop got some boosts!!
#AI is the #SecondHandSmoke of #Technology
One day we will make them all go stand outside.
-
This morning I got an email from a sender that identified itself as an AI agent.
So - plus for being upfront about it, but... please don't do this.
I get that a lot of people are really, really, really into AI tools. OK. I have my opinions on them, you have yours. I have major qualms about them, some people think they're the best thing ever.
OK. Fine. But when your use of these things spills over into the rest of the world, it's no longer a question of my opinion vs. your opinion, my decisions vs. your decisions.
At this point, things have moved from each person doing their own thing to inflicting your use of AI onto me without my consent.
Before this spirals out of control, which I can see happening *very* quickly, I'd like for us to agree on a piece of netiquette:
- it is rude in the extreme to set loose an AI agent to reach out to people who have not consented to interact with these things.
- it is rude to have an AI agent submit pull requests that human maintainers have to review.
- it is rude to have an AI agent autonomously interact with humans in any way when they have not consented to take part in whatever experiment you are running.
- it is unacceptable to have an AI agent autonomously interact with humans without identifying the person or organization behind the agent. If you're not willing to unmask and have a person reach out to you with their thoughts on this, then don't have an AI agent reach out to me.
Stuff like this really sours me on technology right now. If I didn't have a family and responsibilities, I'd be seriously considering how I could go live off the grid somewhere without having to interact with this stuff.
Again: I'm not demanding that other people not use AI/LLMs, etc. But when your use spills out into my having to have interactions with an agent's output, you need to reconsider. Your ability to spew things out into the universe puts an unwanted burden on other humans who have not consented to this.
@jzb you're right about the consent aspect and I wish the boosters and organisations like Mozilla would take no for an answer.
AI and that Guy at the bar
In tech we've always had evangelists, weither it's for FOSS, or Blockchain or now AI. It's a natural thing to do. You have a tech you'r...
cobbles (dotart.blog)
-
E em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange shared this topic
