EDawg2011 wrote:

codubee wrote:

source
Yes, and the world evolves, and we should always be ready to rethink our assumptions and what does or does not make a feature/what have you, doable in a sustainable way. And now you're saying that the proof of the team not knowing about the ToS is… missing? Lets just go with agreeing with you, that a member of the team wasn't up to date on the ToS.

Based on that logic, I should be able to find at least one Scratcher who really really wants AI in Scratch and then I can say, “Look, all of Scratch wants this!” compare and contrast the misinformation about “The Scratch Team didn't know about the ToS” because one team member said things that were interpreted that way.

Please explain how this logic leads you to be able to say all of Scratch wants AI.

Magudragon wrote:

Rosics wrote:

Can we close this topic? We are at the point where no good discussion can happen.

Not until codubee gives us a proper answer to

Magudragon wrote:

So you're saying the TOS was only changed because external A.I. from other corporations can train off projects from the Scratch website?

Just ignore what I said afterwards in the original posts.

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

Do you know that the Scratch Lab object detection features are all run in browser by downloading a local model? Did you know that face sensing is also based on running a local model, precisely to avoid having anyone's face uploaded outside of your computer? The primary expense in that is how long it takes to download them. Is that AI expensive?

I did not know that it's run locally. That being said, will the new AI be ran locally? Even if it is, training is expensive.

EDawg2011 wrote:

codubee wrote:

source
Yes, and the world evolves, and we should always be ready to rethink our assumptions and what does or does not make a feature/what have you, doable in a sustainable way. And now you're saying that the proof of the team not knowing about the ToS is… missing? Lets just go with agreeing with you, that a member of the team wasn't up to date on the ToS.

Based on that logic, I should be able to find at least one Scratcher who really really wants AI in Scratch and then I can say, “Look, all of Scratch wants this!” compare and contrast the misinformation about “The Scratch Team didn't know about the ToS” because one team member said things that were interpreted that way.

Please explain how this logic leads you to be able to say all of Scratch wants AI.

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

Do you know that the Scratch Lab object detection features are all run in browser by downloading a local model? Did you know that face sensing is also based on running a local model, precisely to avoid having anyone's face uploaded outside of your computer? The primary expense in that is how long it takes to download them. Is that AI expensive?

I did not know that it's run locally. That being said, will the new AI be ran locally? Even if it is, training is expensive.

Yes it is expensive. Who said we're doing that?

codubee wrote:

The ToS was changed to be aligned with current industry practices, regulations, and taking issues related to AI into account.

littlejoeywhoiscool wrote:

codubee wrote:

littlejoeywhoiscool wrote:

Just a little question… who made this decision? And did everyone in Scratch Team initially agree on it?

What decision are you talking about? A single person did not make this decision, stop spreading lies about how the “Scratch Team” has no power, or somehow wasn't involved in the decision. The Team is part of that decision making process, _by definition_.

Here’s another question, why do you have the audacity to accuse me of spreading lies when I was just asking a question.

codubee wrote:

EDawg2011 wrote:

codubee wrote:

source
Yes, and the world evolves, and we should always be ready to rethink our assumptions and what does or does not make a feature/what have you, doable in a sustainable way. And now you're saying that the proof of the team not knowing about the ToS is… missing? Lets just go with agreeing with you, that a member of the team wasn't up to date on the ToS.

Based on that logic, I should be able to find at least one Scratcher who really really wants AI in Scratch and then I can say, “Look, all of Scratch wants this!” compare and contrast the misinformation about “The Scratch Team didn't know about the ToS” because one team member said things that were interpreted that way.

Please explain how this logic leads you to be able to say all of Scratch wants AI.

Dude. It's right there in what I'm responding to. Multiple folks have posted here claiming that because a single moderator supposedly “didn't know about the ToS” that means the entire Scratch Team or that all moderators did not know about the ToS updates, which is not just a little false, it's laughable given how much time we spent working on it with lawyers.

cheddargirl wrote:

mingo-gag wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

I find it a bit suspicious how this was closed 4 DAYS before the new terms of service

Some Moderators didn't even know about this update.

This was closed because it was flamey here.so let's not start a flame war again.

More like… all the moderators. I just happened to quite horribly, terribly, woefully, incredibly quite unlucky in this particular instance to have been cursed with handling the report ticket about the flame war comments. (O_o)

Speaking of which, sometimes we see forum reports that are not really reports but comments that really should be posted in a Suggestions thread or submitted via the “Feedback” link on the foundation website. Particularly, when it comes to a decision that has more ramifications (switch from Scratch 2.0 to 3.0, putting a cap on comment chains in studios, and in this case AI), those not-a-report-but-a-suggestion-ticket flood the queue a lot, which makes it harder for moderators to get to tickets that need more urgent attention. I'll still do my due diligence to forward a copy of those reports before moving on to the next ticket, but the moderation queue does need to be clear, I don't think people want to have non-moderation reports to slow down moderators from handling tickets that require more immediate moderator attention (like someone sharing personal info or inappropriate comments).

bBeryllium wrote:

codubee wrote:

The ToS was changed to be aligned with current industry practices, regulations, and taking issues related to AI into account.

really questionable industry practices, I might add

pippy2011eight wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

Do you know that the Scratch Lab object detection features are all run in browser by downloading a local model? Did you know that face sensing is also based on running a local model, precisely to avoid having anyone's face uploaded outside of your computer? The primary expense in that is how long it takes to download them. Is that AI expensive?

I did not know that it's run locally. That being said, will the new AI be ran locally? Even if it is, training is expensive.

Yes it is expensive. Who said we're doing that?

wait, I'm confused, how do you make an AI without training?

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

Do you know that the Scratch Lab object detection features are all run in browser by downloading a local model? Did you know that face sensing is also based on running a local model, precisely to avoid having anyone's face uploaded outside of your computer? The primary expense in that is how long it takes to download them. Is that AI expensive?

codubee wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

wait, I'm confused, how do you make an AI without training?

Because that's not what we're doing!

Terms of Service Announcement wrote:

We also want to assure you that right now, we are not training any AI models on Scratchers’ data.

bBeryllium wrote:

codubee wrote:

The ToS was changed to be aligned with current industry practices, regulations, and taking issues related to AI into account.

really questionable industry practices, I might add

codubee wrote:

StarFutureFox wrote:

PaperMarioFan2024 wrote:

Ai is the last thing we need on here, that should be on the bottom of the list, not the top of the list of priorities.

This website has not only been getting buggier, it’s worse than it was a year off when the accessibility update was rolled out required by accessibility law. What we need to do as a community is prevent Ai from developing so quickly and drastically so that we don’t end up falling behind as a society, the current legal system has been broken for several years now and so far there has been little to no just action to stop artificial intelligence from becoming even more dangerous for people to use, Ai is not your friend, ladies and gentlemen.

What I’m also worried and concerned about is the lack of compliance from billionaire investors and tech companies that are rolling out these algorithms and Ai APIs about issues regarding Ai’s going rogue or even turning on somebody, there should be laws that regulate and enforce legality and transparency involving artificial intelligence. Currently, it feels like mass surveillance and control over anyone that speak out against or calls out these attempts to silence and intimidate others, and kids aren’t safe from this kind of act and behavior, either.

YES, EXACTLYY!! There are so many bugs they could have and should have fixed! They're so annoying and they pop up everywhere! Why don't my messages load? Why do comment threads on profiles just never show up? Why does the explore page not work (for me at least)???

So many USEFUL things that don't get BACKLASH FROM THE COMMUNITY that they could've done! Ugh!

StarFutureFox wrote:

PaperMarioFan2024 wrote:

Ai is the last thing we need on here, that should be on the bottom of the list, not the top of the list of priorities.

~snip~

Scratch has struggled with next steps since the introduction of Scratch 3.0. Not only did we have to support the existing user base, we had the following occur:

At the release of Scratch 3.0, we maxed out at about 30K simultaneous users on the site. Today, we regularly experience 250,000-300,000 simultaneous users on the site.
We have been constantly distracted by scaling the backend systems to keep up with this unexpected growth. It's not as simple as just buying more equipment, it requires changes to how the software works and is configured, on-prem load balancers, and running a distributed system that runs across “the cloud” as well as our own equipment. Example, in 2020, commenting increased 4x across the entire site due to Covid. Forcing us to take time to pull comments out of the main DB in the backend, slowing down all other development work, and, practically no one even noticed it happen because we spent the time and effort to make sure that's what happened.
We've had designs for a new backend system going back to 2019 and at this point, we are making serious progress on this, and it will entirely replace the old django based systems and the node based ones as well. The bugs and glitches you are talking about are us making heroic efforts to keep a system primarily developed and written from 2013-2016, from falling over before we get to the new.

codubee wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

codubee wrote:

Blobfish_Industries wrote:

It been stated that Scratch is not self-sustaining, if this is true, then why add AI? AI is expensive, whether your training it yourself or using a third-party tool. I don't see why Scratch needs AI, especially with so many people saying that they don't want it.

Do you know that the Scratch Lab object detection features are all run in browser by downloading a local model? Did you know that face sensing is also based on running a local model, precisely to avoid having anyone's face uploaded outside of your computer? The primary expense in that is how long it takes to download them. Is that AI expensive?

I did not know that it's run locally. That being said, will the new AI be ran locally? Even if it is, training is expensive.

Yes it is expensive. Who said we're doing that?

wait, I'm confused, how do you make an AI without training?

Because that's not what we're doing!

Foxofpeace wrote:

littlejoeywhoiscool wrote:

codubee wrote:

littlejoeywhoiscool wrote:

Just a little question… who made this decision? And did everyone in Scratch Team initially agree on it?

What decision are you talking about? A single person did not make this decision, stop spreading lies about how the “Scratch Team” has no power, or somehow wasn't involved in the decision. The Team is part of that decision making process, _by definition_.

Here’s another question, why do you have the audacity to accuse me of spreading lies when I was just asking a question.

p.l.i.t.d.

Exascerbescence wrote:

No, it was because a moderator had explicitly said that the moderators — all of the moderators — didn’t know about the TOS changes (at least, not until after the flame wars that started because of them had been dealt with.)

Could you please tell me why you think I am taking @cheddargirl’s post out of context, and what the alternative context would be?

For context here is that post again with the subquote I had removed in error in my sources post

cheddargirl wrote:

mingo-gag wrote:

pippy2011eight wrote:

I find it a bit suspicious how this was closed 4 DAYS before the new terms of service

Some Moderators didn't even know about this update.

This was closed because it was flamey here.so let's not start a flame war again.

More like… all the moderators. …snip

Magudragon wrote:

Someone really needs to close this topic and bump my post as the final one.
Or better, ST can do an announcement clearing this controversial misinfo.

So to summarrize:

Is Scratch trying to implement a Creative Learning assistant?
No


If not, why was the TOS changed?
Because Ai from other corporations (potentially google) can still train off the website.



Should I quit?
Only if the AI controversey wasn't the main reason