-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> but now that i think about it, it would be probably a very big XEP Depends on the scope and the function. And how we want to approach it. Extending ad hoc commands to recognize a group of muc's and manage moderation for them is probably doable. ↺
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
And chogram already has "related" muc's which are close to that
-
Kev
Yes, there was a discussion at the last summit, but no-one else wanted to write it up and I've not found time (yet).
-
pep.
https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-ai.html Yet another spec that makes it sound like I need to opt-in to opt-out? > The messaging app should provide a clear indication that the suggested messages are generated by an AI service, and provide an option for the user to opt-out of the feature.
-
pep.
Can we get rid of these please? (also can we get rid of AI BS too plz)
-
Zash
Does this fill a hole in XMPP specifcations?
-
Kev
Council has the opportunity to veto such things, my only job is getting it from my mailbox into the inbox (and I failed to even do that in a timely manner)
-
pep.
Zash, is that a hole the XSF is interested to fill, that's the real question
-
pep.
(I wouldn't)
-
emus
> pep.: > 2023-10-30 05:57 (GMT+01:00) > https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-ai.html Yet another spec that makes it sound like I need to opt-in to opt-out? Thanks, side-topic in general: Anything around this would be an apprecitaed topic at GSoC
-
emus
(if its not vetod)
-
singpolyma
Even if it is. Nothing says we need a xep number to get some work done 😉
-
Zash
This fills a hole in the marketing strategy?
-
pep.
This certainly fills a hole in the way to attracting VCs
-
emus
> Zash: > 2023-10-30 06:10 (GMT+01:00) > This fills a hole in the marketing strategy? Maybe, but I am not a fan of AI I think. But I also don't stand in the way if anyone believes they want do something around it
-
pep.
go go gadget AI
-
nicoco
pep. I wrote it in the ML (if it works?), my main concern with this XEP is that it calls AI what really is "a conversational agent"
-
singpolyma
Nah, gadget is all artificial *except* his intelligence
-
singpolyma
nicoco: well, AI is way too broad a term to be meaningful. Any heuristic algorithm of any kind counts as AI
-
pep.
> Nah, gadget is all artificial *except* his intelligence true :)
-
pep.
Apart from that, I did have a concern that can be addressed by the council at some point (dunno if that's protoxep or experimental) > Yet another spec that makes it sound like I need to opt-in to opt-out?
-
singpolyma
I didnt read it yet, but generally opt in/opt out semantics are UX and should be out of scope for a XEp✎ -
singpolyma
I didnt read it yet, but generally opt in/opt out semantics are UX and should be out of scope for a XEP ✏
-
pep.
393 is another contender that has the same issue fwiw
-
Zash
Stochastic programming®
-
nicoco
pep. I agree that it feels a little "let's write AI here so we show we are not outdated", but I don't think it's necessarily bad to have a spec allowing better interfaces to interact with bots in general. There is a middle ground between "falling for the hype" and not recognizing that there are use cases for machine learning.
-
pep.
singpolyma, also I'm more and more convinced you can't do specs without having UX in mind already. Maybe that needs to be acknowledged somewhere someday
-
singpolyma
Well, you need to have at least one UX implemented already IMHO, to write a spec, but I know not everyone agrees
-
nicoco
I don't understand your concerns about opting out tbh pep. Right now, you might already be talking to large language models without knowing it (I may be skynet in disguise). This spec gives you a way to opt out?
-
nicoco
> nicoco: well, AI is way too broad a term to be meaningful. Any heuristic algorithm of any kind counts as AI I couldn't agree more, I hate the term AI for various reasons but hey, now it more or less means "artificial neural networks" or "deep learning". It's the way we use words that define what they mean. I also hate when old grumps say "this word shouldn't be used to mean this because in my time it meant that", so I try to act consistently.
-
pep.
nicoco, it's like the #norobot on Mastodon I guess. I'd like it the other way around. "Please don't send me crap as long as I haven't expressed interest for it". Surely I could already be deceived and then, well too bad, but if I have a choice I prefer to be asked first
-
pep.
You know, consent and all :)
-
nicoco
I'm not very familiar with it but I think #norobot means "don't scrape content I have produced to train your ML models", and I don't think this is similar to what we have here.
-
pep.
I'm not saying it's similar
-
pep.
La forme pas le fond (unsure how to say that in english)
-
pep.
form/substance
-
pep.
I'm saying I'm tired of having to implement thing just to opt-out of them
-
pep.
As a developer. And as a user, I want to be asked consent first
-
nicoco
Anyway, I agree that this optin/optout part is weird, since the XEP describes a way to "query a model". I guess the intended use case is "automatic reply suggestion" as we have in a some mail/IM clients these days.
-
pep.
Maybe that's just the way it's being phrased. Probably you'd send a message first to get a reply.
-
pep.
But this "opt-in to opt-out" is a pattern we see here and there
-
emus
(I cannot tell if there is something meaningful, but I would not just see the AI & XMPP topic only within a chat context but also IoT & RTC)
-
emus
Dear community, please remind to sign-up for the XMPP Summit 26 or at least tell that you are considering to join (and maybe reasons that prevent you). That very much helps organisation. https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Conferences/Summit_26#Summit_Participants If you have no access please ask the members to help you. Cheers, Eddie
-
moparisthebest
emus: do we have an idea of what time+timezone the remote participation would be?
-
Daniel
The summit is an all day event in European time zone. (utc+1) Probably from 10am to 5pm or so
-
Zash
Isn't it +2 by then?
-
Zash
or
-
Zash
no
-
Zash
This is my brain on DST switchover
-
Daniel
There is no special slot allocated to remote participation but instead we try to 'stream' the whole event and remote participants can signal that they want to speak
-
Daniel
That said if you have the time and money to participate in person I reckon that's much better. A lot of summit is just getting to know people and discussions over lunch and dinner
-
moparisthebest
4am - 11am for me, oof
-
Zash
And reminding ourselves that there are actual humans attached to these nicknames :)
-
Daniel
The summit usually consists of multiple discussion topics if you can indicate your interest in certain topics beforehand we could maybe try to schedule them towards the end of the days
-
Daniel
Topics are proposed, sorted and scheduled on the morning of day 1
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-ai.html Yet another spec that makes it sound like I need to opt-in to opt-out? >> The messaging app should provide a clear indication that the suggested messages are generated by an AI service, and provide an option for the user to opt-out of the feature. This looks like a horrible can of worms to open for xsf the council and the xmpp ecosystem. The fact that is has this mentioned: > Asking artificial intelligence to make predictions based on a past conversation Without consent and privacy considerations gives me pause. ↺
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> I don't understand your concerns about opting out tbh pep. Right now, you might already be talking to large language models without knowing it (I may be skynet in disguise). This spec gives you a way to opt out? From what i can see you can only opt out from seeing generated messages nothing more: > The messaging app should provide a clear indication that the suggested messages are generated by an AI service, and provide an option for the user to opt-out of the feature. And i dont see why we should enable such behavior anyway imo ↺
-
MattJ
It's not "enabling" AI, it's ensuring that when it *is* used there is a standard way to mark it up
-
MattJ
The alternative options are non-standard markup or no markup (the latter being the most likely outcome in most cases, whether this protoxep gets accepted or not)
-
moparisthebest
There are plenty of AI using XMPP bots now, you don't know they are AI until you talk to them and they spout nonsense back at you though :)
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
another alternative is also not enabling "AI". :)
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
exactly. whether this gets accepted or not changes nothing in AI
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
what it does change is xsf position on it.
-
Zash
Are they going to be doing this anyway? Might as well have a XEP for it. Assuming it's really needed?
-
lovetox
? someone wants to mark a AI generated message as AI generated
-
moparisthebest
It lets bot authors tag their messages as AI generated so users can ignore all AI messages if they wish, right?
-
lovetox
if xsf accepts this, no position is declared
-
moparisthebest
Or display them differently etc etc
-
lovetox
xsf has no position on what users hook up to their network, AI or not
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
is it? because it seems to me that if this gets accepted xsf says AI is ok
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
which I am not saying is a wrong position. but it is a position
-
MattJ
XSF supports proprietary networks by publishing specs about gateways?
-
moparisthebest
AI is ok
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
pretty much yeah
-
moparisthebest
My ai bot uses ai defined in 1906
-
MattJ
I think it's best we leave out of the discussion whether or not AI is okay
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
xsf says its ok for people to communicate with discord
-
moparisthebest
Complicated if/else is AI
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> I think it's best we leave out of the discussion whether or not AI is okay i didnt mention it
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
i said that its the position xsf would take
-
lovetox
XSF takes no position what is "ok"
-
MattJ
No, moparisthebest did, and I used my inbuilt LLM to predict the rest of the conversation and it wasn't good :)
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
if we are ok with it we can go ahead
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
ah
-
moparisthebest
A server deciding how to route message stanzas is AI
-
lovetox
people can do with their servers what they want
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
either way my problems with this xep are more than the AI
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
like the fact that it has no privacy or consent considerations at all
-
moparisthebest
That doesn't make sense in this context
-
MattJ
We don't have that for any other service you might interact with on XMPP either
-
MattJ
Like when you send a message to Discord
-
MattJ
In some cases there's not even much we can do about that at the protocol level - see matterbridge
-
moparisthebest
It's a bot sends a message to a muc, that already happens, this just let's the bot say "btw I'm a bot" that's all
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
but the difference is that the user explicity contacts discord
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
this xep mentions though
-
MattJ
and the same will be true of "AI" - bots *already* exist that use ChatGPT and such
-
Zash
XMPP approves of Embrace eXtend, and extinguish by supporting gateways!!!
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> 4.3 Asking artificial intelligence to make predictions based on a past conversation
-
MattJ
In such a case a user submits stuff to a service, and the service responds
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
which afak gateways dont do no? in the sense that, they dont get random conversations from other people and submit them to discord
-
Zash
Quickly, someone feed all of logs.xmpp.org into some markov chain thing!
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
and again
-
moparisthebest
My bot that uses Markov chains from 1906: https://code.moparisthebest.com/moparisthebest/ash One using llama: https://github.com/divestedcg/llamabot
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
if we are okay with AI and ok with the conversations of everybody on the entire network being fed into this AI
-
lovetox
MSavoritias fae.ve, you seem to misunderstand what the XSF does, you think it governs how people have to use xmpp servers
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
then sure
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> MSavoritias fae.ve, you seem to misunderstand what the XSF does, you think it governs how people have to use xmpp servers not really no
-
moparisthebest
This doesn't enable sucking in all XMPP conversations or anything
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
moparisthebest, did you read this part? 4.3 Asking artificial intelligence to make predictions based on a past conversation
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
of the xep
-
lovetox
it just publishes a standard, thats like saying the TCP standard which defines how data is exchanged with the protocol should have a sentence in it "But dont send TCP packets without user consent, display something before"
-
moparisthebest
Consent is already built into core XMPP
-
Zash
Enter https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3514
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> it just publishes a standard, thats like saying the TCP standard which defines how data is exchanged with the protocol should have a sentence in it "But dont send TCP packets without user consent, display something before" not really. AI is not just transport. i suggest you read some papers from the dair institute to know more about the difference
-
moparisthebest
If you send a message to a user or group of users, you consented for them to read it
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> If you send a message to a user or group of users, you consented for them to read it of course
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
but have i consented for that message to be sent to third party AI services?
-
moparisthebest
You can consent to accept a message from a user or not
-
lovetox
thats between you and your server operator , not the XSF
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
remember that the consent for recordings exists for that reason
-
moparisthebest
Who said anything about 3rd party ai services?
-
moparisthebest
The two AI XMPP bots I just linked are local
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> thats between you and your server operator , not the XSF you seem to be missing what this conversation is about. Its this: if the xsf is okay with AI and ok with the conversations of everybody on the entire network being fed into this AI (according to xep)
-
moparisthebest
The XEP says nothing about that
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
of course it does
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
i have linked it twice now
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
please read the xep we are talking about
-
moparisthebest
It's not even possible to get conversations of everyone on the whole network
-
lovetox
it is neither "ok" with it nor "not ok" with it, it simply should not care
-
lovetox
what users and server operators do with data exchanged is their business
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
lovetox, then you propose not to publish it?
-
lovetox
how do you get this from what i said
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> It's not even possible to get conversations of everyone on the whole network not at the same time no. but it does make every user on the network second guess who they talk to because xsf approved their messages may be fed into an AI service
-
lovetox
if i dont care about something, why would i *not* publush something, that would indicate that i do care
-
moparisthebest
>> It's not even possible to get conversations of everyone on the whole network > not at the same time no. but it does make every user on the network second guess who they talk to because xsf approved their messages may be fed into an AI service This is utter nonsense, no other way to put it ↺
-
moparisthebest
Anyone can, and maybe already is, running a bot now in all public channels sucking data for whatever purpose they want
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
> how do you get this from what i said simple. we have three options: - publishe it. (xsf thinks ai is a positive thing. and doesnt mind amplifing its usage. and the privacy issues the xep currently has) - dont publish it (xsf is neutral) - publish that ai is not allowed in its CoC (xsf is against AI)
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
the publish gives a platform to it essentially
-
moparisthebest
If we approve or don't approve a xep that let's someone mark a message from a bot ai generated doesn't affect that in the slightest
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
moparisthebest, of course. never said otherwise. but is it with xsf approval?
-
lovetox
MSavoritias fae.ve, you misunderstand what the XSF is here for, but it seems im not getting through with my explainations, so i leave it for now
-
MSavoritias fae.ve
because if this xep gets published it will be :)
-
moparisthebest
XSF doesn't approve actions
-
emus
yes about this ^
-
emus
Will add thislater if I dont forget
-
Arne
Hi, sorry I didn't follow much lately. It's not possible to join from a monocles server, neither monocles.de nor monocles.eu .
-
Zash
Why? Is there an error message or something?
-
Arne
I just says server not found
-
Arne
just checking gajim console again..
-
Arne
yep, just address not found.
-
lovetox
check with the server operator
-
pep.
« XSF takes no position what is "ok" » my eyes hurt, again.
-
Zash
xmpp.org → monocles.de connectivity works
-
Zash
the other direction .. less so
-
Zash
can't see more than that from here tho
-
Arne
thanks. Then I check it again on our site. Though it suddenly happend
-
Zash
Maybe the operators@ room is more on topic for this
-
Arne
indeed
-
taba2
best ios client?
-
taba2
movim, snikket?
-
Arne
I would still say siskinIM, but monal is also gettting better and better
-
taba2
monal has an annoying ui bug they said would take too much effort to fix...
-
taba2
Arne: why siskin and not snikket
-
taba2
i read siskin has unusable defaults
-
Arne
Sorry, I don't use iOS actually. Maybe snikket is fine too
-
Arne
But last time I could try a iOS client siskin was working pretty good
-
taba2
does it have stickers a a/v calls✎ -
taba2
does it have stickers and a/v calls ✏
-
taba2
and notifications
-
Arne
a/v calls and notifications did work, as long as your server supports it.
-
Arne
when you're using a snikket server I guess the snikket clients are recommended
-
taba2
docker goes against my religion
-
taba2
my abusive religious cult
-
Zash
Arne, assuming you have an easy way to test something, find another server _not_ using port 5269 and try reaching that
-
Zash
port 9269 is used here. sometimes people decide to block outgoing connections to ports other than 5269, which could explain the monocles issue