Would be a terrible shame if lots of people opted out.
If you are a EU citizen you might also want to write a complaint to privacy@huggingface.co because they are collecting your personally identifiable information in machine-readable form which they are distributing to third parties.
Much like… -reads notes- Microsoft is via Github… huh…
Gothub.com is a thing now for OpenBSD’s Game of Trees project.
It’s gothub.org. You linked to some dumb AI startup.
It’s a sure sign of a bubble that a URL typo coincidentally brings one to a completely unrelated page for a completely unknown, in-beta AI startup with a dumb idea.
I never really needed any justification, but ever since AI companies just take stuff illegally, and that openly, it has become my justification to just pirate the shit out of everything.
(Excluding indie games of developers I like).
This specifically isn’t illegal though. They’ve only scraped public repos.
That depends on the license. Music is also available on Youtube without authentication requirements but I don’t think you can just download those and do whatever you want with them.
Could be wrong, but the act of downloading music isn’t what gets people in trouble, it’s the uploading. When people torrent both happen, but afaik it’s only the uploading portion that is actually bad.
When people torrent only a part of the file is being shared by all peers. Technically only the original seeder shared the whole thing and after a few seeders it’s a tiny portion of the file.
This depends, but not because of piracy. If you have to bypass DRM to download the music, you may be violating DMCA §1201 (even if you are otherwise allowed to use the music).
Edit: This obviously doesn’t apply to GitHub, but might to YouTube.
I think there’s a difference between the laws for individuals and corporations. I don’t think they’re allowed to download either.
Downloading is illegal.
Find me a repo on GitHub with a license that disallows cloning it. I’ll wait.
Any repo without a license disallows reproducing it in any way, which includes cloning it for business purposes.
The only exception is that public repositories can be forked on GitHub as new GitHub repositories. Forking doesn’t give you a license to use or reproduce the code, though.
Have you heard of a thing called copyright?
Wait, are we pro-copyright now?
Never
It should have been anyways. Like what the fuck were you all doing on the internet. Trying to sell your stupid art. Helping corporations steal data and build pay walls so you can earn $500/month selling your kitchy Garfield key chains. The internet should have always been about data replication and sharing. It’s too late to put that cat back in the bag. It was suppose to be stopped 20 years ago. Now we have all this stuff ruining the world and bringing back nazis. But at least the lefty capitalist artist sold some key chains
But at least the lefty capitalist artist sold some key chains
Selling your shit and getting paid doesn’t make you into a capitalist. At most you’re an artisan, if you own your tools and you get paid for your final product rather than your labour hours.
To be a capitalist you necessarily need to own capital. In the example you picked you’d need to own a factory where you underpay people to and keep the surplus from all the keychains they produce.
And regardless of what you meant, you’re absolutely barking at the wrong tree here, market consolidation and monopolies predate the internet, and they would have always had the final say in how we shape our infrastructure and share shit online under capitalism.
You would be a supporter of capitalist. The capitalist needed to take the internet away from the left. It was hostile to making capital. Early days people were much more aware of defending it against capitalist which like you said, people were tracking how capitalist ruined all other frontiers and left them dried out husks that stifled originality, creativity and actual innovation. Look at the leftovers from the early days. Websites from them were focused on free use and sharing information freely, gnu, Winamp, VLC, sites like reddit, digg, Wikipedia wouldn’t exist with today’s internet if they were created today. Capitalist took over.
I don’t see how people selling keychains (physical items) helped corporations steal data.
Keychain just a stand in for anything. More like how someone making videos of making key chains used patent trolls to build tools to scan all the videos they can in order to find users they can take down. Just one example. The little lefty entrepreneur was used to beat the old school leftists into the dirty on behalf of the corporate interests. Now everything is owned by corporate and we lost the internet to racist nazis. There’s a moment 20 years ago things could have been different that we’ll never get back. Frontier was new and we needed to rally around the wagon to defend the frontier. Instead we sold out.
And now all the lefties are in the smallest corner of the internet and the rest of the internet and social media is owned by the capitalist and nazis. It all started by forgetting the roots and in favor of selling our key chains and trying to build a market rather than a collaborative space.
What’s with the obsession with “lefties” vs nazis?? Sounds like somebody stayed on the propaganda carousel a bit too long.
You choose what parts of the internet you want to use, so who cares if 99% is profit oriented garbage, honestly.
People choose to publicly share their stuff for free, so of course it’s gonna be taken advantage of. That’s literally capitalism.
Yea it’s so crazy. Lol
Everything is fine. Nazis are marching in streets again primarily driven by online recruitment. Billionaires are investing in removing leftist from digital spaces to facilitate this. But because I care, I’m obsessed.
I’ll just choose to hang out here with the people who say they oppose this stuff but really, they’re just what, posting about beans and moths while nazis take over the government, March in the street and feed children their content through multiple pipelines that are growing because there’s fuck all resistance. After all the “resistance” is busy trying to decide which hole they want to hide in.
I fought hard for net neutrality, a lot of us did. We don’t matter.
Which goes to my point. You fought wrong. What i see is that the left is very likely manipulated by right wing interest groups way more than people want to admit. I think for decades now, they have targeted leftist online for issues we traditionally dominated and redirected people into areas that were very ineffective. Meanwhile they socially engineered the right side and MAGA to actually effective social engagement. After decades the left is just a dead in the water idea with people who no longer know how to use the internet correctly for social engineering and engagement. The only time the left rallies is when the effort is the most high effort, high energy, low reward movement people could possibly imagine.
The left in the past were intelligent intellectual building and innovating things. That is no longer the case. We’re resting on the laurels of the best and looking around at lemmy should make it very obvious how true this is.
The sad reality i think people need to understand its the MAGA isn’t winning just because of money. They’re wining because they’re putting effort in areas that the left don’t even realize are important. They are playing chess and the left aren’t even playing because competition makes the left feel anxious.
I have multiple people in my life on the right who spend all their time online posting and networking and planning. They will shit post all day. Between the 3 of them, they probably create tons of content. Let alone sharing and promoting others content.
People on the left I know will read an article. Can’t be bothered to share or even upvote. Maybe they’ll write a comment like “This sucks, Trump is stupid” and then they go look for star trek memes all day. Give this behavior 20 years for the kids today to grow up. The global cultural image of the left right now is a weak, gutless screaming loser who nobody wants to admit to being outside of small circles. Kids today hate the left. It’s going to get so much worse.
I hope you’re wrong, but not much hope :(
deleted by creator
Me too.
My point here isn’t to shit on the left just to shit on them. It’s to at least get discussion if not find others who see it too. I think we’re asleep. Maybe hoping if we just play the ethical long game that maybe it’ll all return. In my mind we’re standing on the beach watching the tide recede after an earthquake. Like most thing stuff is weird, but they’re not really tracking that they need to start acting now if it isn’t already too late.
My hope is people get a fire under there ass and first admit that we have fucked up and it’s time to start firing up our own grass roots efforts. Download gimp. Get back on social media since we were never going to make a dent in their profits. Start using all these tools even AI to resist and present a front against these modern nazis. Play fucking dirty if we have to. People bitch about money but that money is only doing what we do for fun. Instead of obsessing about beans and moths, let’s get back to being political and taking ground.
Lemmy could be a staging ground with the way it is built. Because when a site is a threat, they’ll use every capitalist lever they can to squash it. They’ll bring in moderation teams. They’ll bring in ads. They’ll bring in the tools we didn’t resist. And if they do, we stand up a new instance without that shit. But we gotta do something to fire us up or it is only going to get worse.
Some of these are good points, and I’ve got a tool to recommend: Fedica.
I use it to schedule my posts in advance and post on social media without actually having to be on it all the time.
Scraping without consent steals developer personalIP.
We want to give developers agency over their source code by letting them decide whether or not it should be used to develop and evaluate machine learning models.
fuck them seriously; if you want to do that then don’t steal the repositories in the first place.
Meanwhile at work we just had a training course that specifically said doing “opt out” instead of “opt in” violates the principle of informed consent.
Notice how a shit load of these people keep turning up to be rapists and pedophiles… They have no shits to give about informed consent. In their mind you don’t even have the right to the same agency they do.
not surprising since the venn diagram of ai bros and rapists is a circle.
Kinda hope it uses my code. It’s so terrible there’s no doubt it will make the resulting code from the model worse even if the impact is miniscule
I just opted out of all my repos except the God awful ones from middle and highschool. Those are basically prompt poison so fuckem
They cloned a few projects I’ve made that rely heavily on a library I also made, I’m only pulling out the library.
Modern tech companies love using the rapsist’s model of consent.
Unless I’m mistaken, this wasn’t written by the folks that scaped GitHub in the first place, someone just wrote a small tool to semi-automate the process of searching the scraped dats, and submitting a GitHub issue to have it removed.
it’s pretty clear from the language of the site, the fact that it’s on the hugging face domain, and the fact that the github organisation for the “opt out” makes it clear it’s hugging face.
don’t steal the repositories
How is this remotely stealing?
It’s not, but it may be violation of licenses. And also, if it has personal information on it, that’s probably illegal under the GDPR.
but it may be violation of licenses
They excluded code with non-permissive licenses apparently:
Each file is labelled permissive (at least one permissive license detected, no conflicting non-permissive license), no_license (no licenses detected, or only non-license legal texts such as CLAs), or non_permissive. The permissive allowlist follows the Blue Oak Council list plus licenses categorized as Permissive or Public Domain by ScanCode. Files classified as non_permissive are excluded from both released datasets.
also, if it has personal information on it, that’s probably illegal under the GDPR.
It’s all public so I would be extremely surprised if that were the case.
the method on github is to fork it not steal all the data in an external storage for external purposes without consent of the user.
edit: you can also report their whole account to github here: https://support.github.com/contact/report-abuse?category=report-abuse&report=bigcode-project&report_id=110470554&report_type=user
I’m pretty sure they just cloned the repos. That’s how GitHub is designed to work. Have you never cloned a repo from GitHub?
Yes, but I used it under the licence terms of the original developer.
So have they. They filter by license - see my other comment.
It doesn’t seem that way. My list contains several repositories that don’t have licenses, even some with GPL.
so if you are licenced under MIT and they use your code, they publish your copyright header?
Yes. If they train AI from your code? No, but the legality of that is yet to be settled and definitely leaning towards “it’s fine”.
not for private for profit use from shitty ai companies though…
lol my first ever JavaScript project is in the stack. No wonder their models suck so much ass
my commits are the reason we haven’t achieved AGI
Thank you for your service 🫡 please keep committing trash code
My Arduino led project that didn’t work is going to topple the world order.
Same here. Out of all my public facing repos, they grabbed the group projects from when me & friends were first learning to code 👀
They also scraped some of my assembly code of which I’m pretty sure the latest version has a major bug. Let’s hope they don’t use these models to program my new PC’s bios.
We want to give developers agency over their source code by letting them decide whether or not it should be used to develop and evaluate machine learning models.
crawled directly from GitHub and built to pre-train code LLMs with full-repository context
Repositories that opted out are removed from the dataset before each patch release.
“agency”
Which AI company will not use v1 which has all of the data but will use later patch releases instead which have less data?
Or just merge it
A decade ago, if someone asked someone working on an Open Source project if they’d be ok with an AI reading their code and learning from it, they’d most likely say “yeah that sounds really cool!”
Somehow the tech-bros have fucked up AI so much that something that should be really cool seems creepy, lame, and nefarious all at once.
Making arguments from popular perception is never very strong. AI is cool if you actually think about it - the capability is incredible. Anything that can produce working code was going to have this ambivalent result where execs pushed it way too hard.
Yup, the idea is good. How this this idea is being implemented… not so much.
Simultaneously they have created the part I wanted from Star Trek, while making the worst possible anti star trek a reality.
E.g.
I want to be able to ask a computer about history, art, codeing, well anything. And be able to clarify and question and put together new ideas.
But not by anyone owning that ability or profiting on the labor of others or causing environmental harm.
We got the cool computer but haven’t achieved the post-scarcity part.
I don’t think you can have one without the other.
Post-scarcity isn’t actually possible. Not even in Star Trek this is true. Picard’s family owns a vineyard in France filled with artifacts and antiques. Not everything is fungible. People will desire these non-fungible things. Not everyone that desires these things will be able to have them, because they aren’t fungible. You can’t have a billion people all owning vineyards in France. Some people won’t get everything they want. There will always be scarcity.
Star Trek was made in the 1960’s at the height of the cold war. They didn’t want the show to be about how capitalism was superior to communism, or vice versa. So they side stepped the issue by saying in the future there’s no scarcity, no money, and they live under some ideal future economic model. The show writers don’t know what that ideal economic model is, so it’s deliberately vague and inconsistent. And that’s fine because the show isn’t about economics.
It was wise of the writers of Star Trek to avoid trying to make predictions of that nature. 300 years ago, Wealth of Nations wasn’t yet written, the field of economics didn’t really exist. They believed shiny rocks had intrinsic value. They had some vibes about things like currency devaluation and inflation, but economics was still mostly about acquiring shiney rocks 300 years in the past. So what will economics be like 300 years in the future? None of us know, and certainly writers of a TV show don’t know.
The writers of a TV show saying there will be no scarcity in the future just means they didn’t want to discuss economics. It’s not any kind of prediction about the future. There will always be scarcity.
deleted by creator
There have been periods of human history within some groups that did have no needs scarcity. Shelter, food, water, all there. Replenishing faster than they could consume it.
Star Trek addresses needs scarcity to a large degree, instead of want scarcity. Of course, the TNG makes it a little more clear that they can make anything you want, which who knows if we get there.
A good example would be do you have somewhere to live? Need Scarcity met. Do you want a high floor overlooking the Nebula? Want Scarcity, not always possible.
Of course it could be argued that if you could go multiple times the speed of light in a infinite universe you are likely to find something that you want.
People will desire these non-fungible things.
This is the case where if I were to replicate it, what would be the difference? Do you think if we got to that point we could intellectualize that the same molecules are the same molecules or not?
There have been periods of human history within some groups that did have no needs scarcity. Shelter, food, water, all there. Replenishing faster than they could consume it.
Which periods are these?
I’d say right now we have the necessary resources to provide for everyone’s needs in the world. Providing for basic needs isn’t a scarcity issue, it’s a resource allocation issue. We aren’t prioritizing providing for everyone’s needs before providing for people’s wants.
I’m lucky enough to live in a developed country, I have shelter, a fridge full of food, I turn a tap and I have potable water. It’s all there for me. My needs are taken care of. I still think would be awesome if I owned a private island in a nice climate, with a big house on it and a pier with my own yacht I could sail around when I feel like it. But there’s the problem, how do we determine who gets what they want? If I got the private island, yacht, etc. while you only had your basic needs met, would you consider that to be an equitable society?
Why does Picard get a vineyard in France while someone else has to be satisfied by whatever the replicator provides them?
TNG makes it clear that Picard values original artifacts. There’s a scene where he assumes an artifact someone is giving him is replicated but then is told it’s the original. He basically pisses his pants over it being a much too valuable of a gift. So no, in Star Trek people do place greater value on non-fungible items. You don’t even think of this scene as unusual because of course people think that way.
Starfleet needed more starships to defend themselves from the Dominion. Do you consider that a need or a want? They don’t have an infinite number of starships. Apparently building starships involved some kind of scarce resources.
Because they didn’t have enough starships, a lot of people died. If we consider not being vaporized by a phaser to be a need, the Federation was not able to provide everyone’s needs because of a scarcity of resources limited the number of starships they could produce.
Like I say, Star Trek is incredibly inconsistent about this. If an episode requires scarcity of resources so Nog can trade different things to different people in a fun episode, then those resources are scarce. If they need to use gold pressed latinum, they use currency. If someone asks “how does your economy work?” then suddenly “they don’t use money, they don’t need it because they have everything they want.” And this is fine, if someone 300 years ago were to write some fiction about our time, it would probably be about people more Scrooge McDuck (who had a giant vault of shiny coins) rather than Elon Musk (who has no need for that because that’s not how the economy works). Star Trek can’t have a realistic economy, and it doesn’t need it. We’re just meant to assume it’s broadly equitable, everything is fuzzy beyond that.
This is the case where if I were to replicate it, what would be the difference?
You can’t replicate an infinite amount of land in France. You can’t replicate an infinite number of private islands. People will value these things and they will be scarce. Why would Picard live on a vineyard in France instead of in a holodeck version of a vineyard if there was no value to the real thing?
which periods
Coastal peoples of California, Jamon of Japan, Puget sound Indians, Hawaiians, the Congo, and so on. Places where you have mild climate, hugely abundant food supply and easily worked materials.
I’m lucky enough to live in a developed country, I have shelter, a fridge full of food, I turn a tap and I have potable water.
You do, but I am assuming this all revolves around keeping a job or employing yourself somehow
I have had the discussion just like this “If I got the private island, yacht, etc. while you only had your basic needs met, would you consider that to be an equitable society?” with some people. Interestingly they often say, so? why would i want an island or a yacht? And if I did wouldn’t I just go to the holodeck? Seems like a lot less to take care of.
Which brings us to this:
People will value these things and they will be scarce.
Do they? Or are we conditioned to feel that way?
But yes in the end Star Trek is just a fiction with themes at the core, not exact solutions or even realism when looked at closely.
Either way, my point was I want the computer with knowledge and not have that some how steal, hurt, take away from, get owned by, deprive anyone, or cause environmental damage. And my first thought about that part was post scarcity where no company would own any of this.
deleted by creator
I mean they’d have been ok with it because tech bros were the ones automating other people out of jobs and never thought it would come for theirs.
The level of AI we have now was impossible science fiction a decade ago.
The best way to opt out is by not using GitHub. Also opts you out of Copilot and a bunch of other stuff.
Other git hosts are also getting scraped, and have had to implement counters because of it. For example, this is the kind of thing Codeberg shows crawlers. I’ve even seen people who self-host complaining about getting overloaded because of bots scraping their forge
I’ve put Anubis before most of my website, including my forgejo instance. For the projects hosted there, which is not all, I can only hope that that’s enough.
I like to have the visibility and CI of GitHub. But this sucks ass.
Already did that some time ago but I am still in the dataset.
note that former users would have needed to remove their GitHub data before August 2025 to not be in this dataset
When I back something up, I save a copy and add “backup” to the name… Because I’m advanced.
If I’m feeling really good and healthy, I’ll even put it on a usb stick.
When I hear this company’s name I can’t get the idea out of my head that it’s related to the face huggers from Alien.
I just followed the opt out link and they’re making you open a public issue with a Markdown list with all your repositories you want removed.
Surely there has to be a better way to do this (probably the point).
Also why are they storing 4.71 TB in a Git repo? How are they going to deal with removal requests?
EDIT: It seems like they’re manually responding to the issues, wtf? There’s a perfectly fine GitHub auth system that they could use to verify everyone’s GitHub account / repository ownership
EDIT 2: This is apperently a collaboration between Hugging Face and ServiceNow, why is my companies IT ticketing system scraping all of GitHub?
with a Markdown list with all your repositories you want removed.
The repo readme linked FAQ says
You can choose to request either (1) all repos, or (2) you can specify select repos that you own to be removed.
so “all of them” should be acceptable
Am I alone in not wanting to put my username into that field? If they don’t have it will they then just decide that it’s now a good time to scrape it? Or are they going to record that it was searched?
The right move is to private all repositories you are uncertain of that you want them to be preserved forever in an AI training set.
A little bit infuriating since huggingface itself requires login to access a large portion of the content on their site
Noteworthy: They crawled only the default branch HEAD and inlined all source content.
- The file contents are included inline. The decoded UTF-8 source text is embedded directly in the dataset, so it is fully self-contained — you can start training the moment the download finishes.
- It reflects the state of GitHub in August 2025. The corpus is a direct crawl of GitHub repositories at their default-branch HEAD, capturing roughly two additional years of open-source code compared to The Stack v2.
if I opt out, will the Roko’s basilisk come after me?
Reported for cognitohazard. Delete this immediately.
(I kid, but someone really did report your comment.)
lmao
I think its hilarious that some people seem to actually take this science fiction variation on Pascal’s wager seriously.
No because your code is shit; you would be helping us reach singularity faster.
As long as you haven’t been told what you’re opting out of, you’re good.
Wonder how many of those repos contain AI-generated code?
