151–160 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the notion that the sides of the pages flash as you scroll due to simulating that old Macintosh monochrome monitor dithering effect. My eyes.
Isn't that because you (and me!) have screens with slow response times for pixel color change though?
Quite frankly I don't understand why the cat and mouse argument here is meant to serve as a shutdown for anti-AI methods. Whole industries entirely exist in a cat and mouse state (cybersecurity, anti-cheat, etc) and no one in those industries imply that any solution is or can be a permanent dunk. If anything, the very fact that theres no permanent dunk is what leads to such industries developing a competitive service…
AI labs are broadly within the law and would like to not become criminal organisations, because money laundering is expensive.
We will probably have to wait Europe and China to do this since the US executive , legislative and legal systems have all been bought by Ames oligarchs .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main argument against these fonts is that you are removing accessibility for humans permanently in exchange for removing accessibility for scrapers temporarily. It might raise the cost for some scrapers, to some degree, but it raises the cost to, effectively, infinity for anyone who needs to use a screen reader, a browser's 'reader' view, or any other assistive technology. Things like this just remind me of EA's…
I also see no virtue in stopping an AI from reading something to begin with. If anything, I find it anti-social - hide your work from the machine trying to learn from it, taking nothing away from you in exchange for benefiting all of mankind?
Thanks for introducing me to shieldfont.org! It's the first of these I've seen that feels designed to be more than a visual experiment, reading through their landing page is interesting. In particular, their section on accessibility seems to contradict this post's opening premise: > Screen readers get the real words. A screen reader reading down the page is never handed scrambled text, and our NVDA test asserts exact…
A bit ironic that this is written in idiomatic Claudese.
Their stance appears to be "[t]his is not an anti-AI font. AI is in our lives. We are actually a pro-consent font." (https://github.com/isaqueseneda/shieldfont/issues/2) Might be a bit more niche market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also see no virtue in stopping an AI from reading something to begin with. If anything, I find it anti-social - hide your work from the machine trying to learn from it, taking nothing away from you in exchange for benefiting all of mankind?
Are you hopelessly naive or are you just Sam Altman ?
This whole distinction is futile imho. And no, I'm not Sam Altman.
I mean training is one thing, you should honor people's licenses, but browsing and gathering information? Why force me to do it with my biological neural net?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simply that a font won't solve anything. That concept is worst than security by obscurity, as it causes more problem and add more constraints than what it solves... for a very limited time until AI bots are adjusted to decode those fonts properly.
how can you make such a bold claim so early with 0 evidence? A successful (and much more realistic outcome) could be to make a font that is financially infeasible for LLMs to parse but easy for humans.
I suppose Uberzi has a confidence level in their claim, but it's tedious to hedge every damn thing.
Thanks for introducing me to shieldfont.org! It's the first of these I've seen that feels designed to be more than a visual experiment, reading through their landing page is interesting. In particular, their section on accessibility seems to contradict this post's opening premise: > Screen readers get the real words. A screen reader reading down the page is never handed scrambled text, and our NVDA test asserts exact…
When you look at their live demo ( https://shieldfont.org/demo/ ), it says: If you use a screen reader, custom font, or translator, please uncover the text before reading. They also actively block copying the text, telling you to "uncover" the text first. The uncover operation is VERY expensive. Anyone using assistive technologies or trying to copy "protected" text is SOL. Search engines will index the decoy. You'll…
Not sure if that's due to ublock or one of the font settings in ff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you see the low contrast?
The linked article has a fairly light gray background with white text. I can read it, but the low contrast is just tiresome.
Setting browser. display. use_document_colors or browser.display.document_color_use to 0 fixes things.
It does break some stuff, like voting buttons on hn. Im happy with the tradeoff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you hopelessly naive or are you just Sam Altman ?
Well, as a user of LLMs I also find it annoying, the agents gather information on my behalf, they save me time and money. Are we splitting humanity? Those with info accessible to agents and those who only use their human sense directly? This whole distinction is futile imho. And no, I'm not Sam Altman. I mean training is one thing, you should honor people's licenses, but browsing and gathering information? Why force…
Having principles means applying them uniformly -- even to large entities or those you hate (it's fine if the principles themselves have size bounds in them, though -- versus them being implicitly glued on -- but then you need a universal justification for why that size. Which is possible and valid.)
I think that one should use the best algorithms, the best information, the best knowledge they have access to -- period. I don't like using gimped machines, I don't like making gimped machines, and I certainly don't like being sold them.
So I'm not going to turn around and say LLMs need to be gimped via arbitrary restrictions on their training data.