any focused ideas on how this is triggered?

Be careful of what you say in front our Smart TV, warns Samsung

The only relatively safe way to avoid it is to not use any app unless it’s from f-droid or similar places, to use a degoogled phone, to use an adblocker for all websites, to use an end-to-end messenger for private conversations and not social media, to use federated non-profit social media if you ever use any at all, to use a paid email provider that doesn’t make money of your data as primary income, and to use an actually private web search (not Bing, not Google).

It’s a shame that it requires so much knowledge and effort for a bare minimum of privacy.

Oh I know they don’t, they just make it easier for you not to put any data into them.

If I had to guess, too many government agencies are probably bought by big tech. Otherwise, they wouldn’t let that neglect of privacy fly at such a scale. I suppose the question is when people will get sick enough of it that it results in a change.

Gloria Caulfield, the Vice President of Strategic Alliances for real estate firm Tavistock Development

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/ai-university-central-florida-graduation-speech-boos-b2974458.html

I agree. It’s a horrible situation.

I use a slow phone that supports postmarketOS, but it’s so far behind that I couldn’t recommend anybody else to use it. I guess the only “easy” solution is to only use a dumbphone for calls and as a hotspot where otherwise unavoidable, and to otherwise stay away from phones entirely…

Lemmy is great and that’s the only place I’m posting.

But yeah, if I’m looking for a past conversation on a niche topic, I’ll probably find something to read on reddit.

That doesn’t mean there might not be an app recording you. Stay away from Google phones and don’t use apps with microphone permissions unless they’re either open-source or they have a really good reason for having them.

I think the code repository of that link is for some German agency.

My opinion is that the data disagrees with you: 1. https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/beyond-memorization-text-generators-may-plagiarize-beyond-copy-and-paste 2. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543507.3583199 3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949719123000213#b7 4. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/01/ai-memorization-research/685552/ 5. Related high profile incident that is very telling: https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/microsoft-uses-plagiarized-ai-slop-flowchart-to-explain-how-github-works-removes-it-after-original-creator-calls-it-out-careless-blatantly-amateuristic-and-lacking-any-ambition-to-put-it-gently/

In the US at least, there’s clear legal precedent that LLM fabrications are not copyrightable.

I see many people doubt this says anything about training data copyright, beyond AI user copyright.

This isn’t legal advice, I’m not a lawyer.

Then the PR can be evaluated, rejected if it’s nonfree or just poor quality

I don’t get the difficulty of rejecting “if it’s nonfree or just poor quality or known LLM code”. I don’t think it’s a vague criterion.

And for many projects, if you admit it’s from a StackOverflow post, unless you can show it’s not a direct copy they will reject it as well. This isn’t commonly taken as incentivizing people to lie.

Now whether you think LLMs are worth the trouble to use is a different discussion, but the enforcement point doesn’t convince me.

There is also a responsibility and liability question here. If something turns out to be a copyright issue and the contributor skirted a known rule, the moral judgement may look different than if you knew and included it anyway. (I can’t comment on the legal outcomes since I’m not a lawyer.)

In my opinion, this argument is exactly the same as saying “we can’t enforce people not stealing GPL-licensed code and copy&pasting it into our project, so we might as well allow it and ask them to disclose it.”

You can try to argue AI may actually be useful, which seems like what they did, and that would more fairly inform a policy in my opinion. I think your argument doesn’t.

You’ll see farther below, sadly the lemmy team seem to have reversed their opinion immediately after. See also here: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-docs/pull/414/changes