> Maybe I should have contested it but I was and still am going through a pretty rough patch in my life and just didn't have the willpower to start any drama. Mostly I think it sucks because IMO the worse technical solution got merged because their PR had a more flashy title.
>That's when I realized what was happening. So whatever, I did what she asked, left her discord and tried to forget about it.
>I really don't want to start any drama so I'll just say that I wrote the code in my commits.
No one claiming to be that user said anything derogatory or ever called for drama. You're making hollow accusations, basically: "Your messages were intermingled among bad comments" "some other users said bad things," "do you denounce you ever gave your side of the story?"
And I'd certainly consider it distancing yourself from the conversation when you close your PR and remain silent when someone essentially steals your code, and goes from "I was co-author" to "my code," "my work," "I did this," "I'm the author" all over Twitter, a bragging PR where she changed the magic number to her initials, etc.
I'm the one "responsible" for noticing this and raising the flag that something isn't right. Code was stolen and the toxic user responsible was taking more and more credit. The community reacted appropriately, on the whole, as did the owner of the project in banning the plagiarist. She's free to add her side of the story, of course. This issue was actually raised with her on Twitter twice and she ignored it, before it made its way to Github. To the extent that drama was caused by this, it's wholly the fault of the person who created this situation with her unethical behavior and intentionally misleading statements.
Of course no one can verify if that user is the same one in the 4chan threads. It's 4chan. But the commit history speaks for itself, and is well-documented by now.
None of this is an excuse for derogatory terms or slurs to be used on 4chan (or elsewhere), but you're intentionally muddying the waters.
> No one claiming to be that user said anything derogatory or ever called
> for drama. You're making hollow accusations, basically: "Your messages
> were intermingled among bad comments"
This is not "removing yourself from [the] situation" as Slaren asserts.
> And I'd certainly consider it distancing yourself from the conversation
> when you close your PR and remain silent when someone essentially steals
> your code [...] I'm the one "responsible" for noticing this and raising
> the flag that something isn't right.
> To the extent that drama was caused by this, it's wholly the fault of the
> person who created this situation with her unethical behavior and
> intentionally misleading statements.
> Of course no one can verify if that user is the same one in the 4chan threads.
I'm really not muddying the waters here. What you're trying to argue is difficult for me to believe.
[0] https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/pull/586#issuecomment...
It's evident from simply looking at the PR that the user @slaren on the Github distanced himself from the situation. Days had passed with no one discussing the stolen code until I brought it up in the original PR (which jart rebased off of and created the infamous "Make loading weights 10-100x faster" PR)
> Yes, I can see that you were one of the key people that created drama, by asking "I'm wondering how much was written by you and how much by jart?" [0]
I didn't create drama. Jart created drama. By stealing code. Plagiarism. Then shameless self-promotion, to this very moment.
Do you have absolutely no integrity whatsoever?
>and then when they publicly said they didn't want to start drama, trying to get private comment from them by saying "My contact info is in my profile if there's more to say."
They didn't contact me, and I simply went through the public Github history to document what jart had done, and continues to do.
>I think somebody could choose to believe this, but somebody that reads the GitHub and desuarchive.org threads might also feel that @InconsolableCellist and @slaren had a part to play, too.
Yes, correct. I told you my part, I noticed what jart was doing. Why have you continually ignored what jart did? Why do you seem to think it's some minor issue that she stole code, bragged about it, took all the credit, and damaged the community with unnecessary drama? Why are you so focused on everything except the central ethical issue?
>Yes, it's technically possible that somebody pretending to be Slaren investigated the GitHub and was able to correctly infer exactly what happened chronologically including that they had collaborated on jart's Discord. However, Occam's razor suggests it was Slaren themselves and not a very clever troll.
Even if that were true--which it isn't, to my knowledge--it changes nothing about jart's behavior. Even if every user also used derogatory slurs, it changes nothing about the wrong was committed (but adds additional wrongs).
Fortunately, for anyone level-headed enough to look at what's been discussed so far, you can see the unethical behavior of the user that stole code, the aftermath, and the appropriate reaction for that user to be banned. The behavior that you've ignored and seem wholly unconcerned with, as if blind to it. Plagiarism.
However, I won't respond to you here, since (1) it should be quite clear that I think @slaren wasn't given enough recognition for their work from my prior comments and that there is a more positive approach you could have taken to helping to give them this, and (2) the rest of what you said about ethics is subjective, and I think wrong in magnitude -- for example, I'm not sure it's correct to call it "plagiarism" when @jart's PR mentioned the collaboration with @slaren, used co-authored commits and linked to their PR.
"Here's how folks in the community have been reacting to my work."
"I just wrote a change that's going to let your LLaMA models load instantly..."
"I'm the author"
"Author here..."
"Tragedy of the commons...We're talking to a group of people who live inside scientific papers and jupyer notebooks."
"My change helps inference go faster."
"The point of my change..."
"I stated my change offered a 2x improvement in memory usage."
"I can only take credit for a 2x recrease in RAM usage."
"I just wrote a change that's going to let your LLaMA models load instantly, thanks to custom malloc() and the power of mmap()"
jart was working on a malloc() approach that didn't work and slaren wrote all the code actually doing mmap, which jart then rebased in a random new PR, changed to support an unnecessary version change, magic numbers, a conversion tool, and WIN32 support when that was already working in the draft PR. https://archive.ph/Uva8c
This was 2 weeks prior to @slaren's contribution (https://github.com/slaren/llama.cpp/commit/fc685122f95f212d1...) on March 29th, so in a sense, it's quite possible that what you've just shown is that @slaren saw that @jart was working on mmap support, worked out a cleaner solution and then wasn't happy with only being a co-author -- for their contribution, they believed that they must be the only person mentioned on the PR.
I don't think saying "my changes" on Twitter and other social media means what you suggest it does as is it is just informal speech to refer to things you've worked on with "my", and particularly when you see the times this was expanded (e.g. "yesterday my changes to the LLaMA C++ file format were approved") it seems more reasonable than it does without this context.
In fact, if you read the thread you linked to, you'll see this for yourself too, no reentry required. There's nothing actually objectionable or "repulsive," as jart put it, in that renetry, with an exception of the "r word" being applied to a proposed technical solution.
Your interpretation is incompatible with what we see and the clear timeline. The social media bragging, the second PR, etc., are further evidence. I hope whatever anger you had going into this has abated to the point where you can now actually judge the evidence.
Trust absolutely nothing from that site or any other imageboard unless people provide documented evidence, e.g. timestamped picture or signed message, etc
>The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
>Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
I don't actually have any idea where this quote appears these days, I've just been hearing it in reference to chans for well over a decade now. I think it might have been on the bottom of every page in the past.
Looking at the now deleted https://web.archive.org/web/20230402192741/https://rentry.or..., there was somebody claiming to be you saying things like "Slaren here. Pretty much all that has been said here is correct, what jart did was to take my code, remove backwards compatibility, add a new converter and then proceed to take all the credit" and "To understand why I did that, you have to go back here: https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/issues/91#issuecommen... jart initially created an implementation of mmap a couple of week back that was an abomination that relied on doing things like replacing malloc. Completely unworkable in a real code base. [...] So anyway, I joined jart's discord and talked to her about this a bit, she seemed to be interested in collaborating and that's why I added her as co-author, even thought she didn't write a line of code of the PR. Eventually out of nowhere she opened the PR that you all know and asked me to close mine. That's when I realized what was happening. So whatever, I did what she asked, left her discord and tried to forget about it". This was intermingled into comments calling jart a "troon" (a derogatory term for transwoman).
Are you saying unequivocally that this wasn't you?
Even assuming that somebody was stealing your identity, why didn't you point out the problems with the PR upfront? One can't sit on the sidelines casting aspersions while also claiming that they are distanced from the situation.
I think in this situation you are lucky to be anonymous. Either (a) people are competently pretending to be you on some kind of anti-trans imageboard by some how managing to be perfectly consistent with the statements you've made today, or (b) you did pop into that thread to stir up shit. I think the latter is more believable.