Looks like I better start learning OpenBSD ASAP. I really like my distro of choice, but if the distro it’s based off of is shooting itself in the foot, I have to switch over massive ethical concerns!
Second I find out I can put a second drive in my desktop, I plan on using it to learn to make something a lot less hostile to the actual people helping develop the OS. And OpenBSD sounds like a fun choice for now… at least until I find they have started betraying the actual people.
If you’re worried about LLM generated code you better stop using computers all together.
I’d rather spend my time using technology to spread the word that the creatures who use genAI can become human again through reeducation against genAI. Sounds much more productive.
Sure, just accept you will be using technology build with genAI.
Not much of an issue with that, I feel.
I can tell you for sure that the workers and the farmers did not own the pitchforks nor the materials for the guillotines with which they rebelled against their oppressors.
Return to monke. Literally.
Or maybe just get off the grid
No, I am worried about idiots committing llm generated code straight into production without even bothering to review it
So you will check the development process or each project you use? Good luck with that.
So I will drop any project that goes nuts before they get a chance to fuck up my life or work
NetBSD is also worth a look, especially with the MicroVM kernel stuff in 11. You can look at smolBSD to start playing with it immediately.
It’s a desktop, there should be sufficient space to fit more than one drive. You can also use external drives. I use three on my server.
From what I understand, while OpenBSD is currently not accepting LLM contributions, they mostly made that choice out of legal copyright concerns, and seem like they would jump on the bandwagon when they consider it to be safer legally.
Then I hope now for it to never become legally safe to use LLM code. LLMs have poisoned literally everything pure and holy and I hate them for it!
Is there any plan to fork it? Are there any non Debian systems that use apt?
Are there any non Debian systems that use apt?
Everything Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Pop!_OS. I don’t think any of them are planning on staying pure.
The fork would need its own kernel, since the kernel itself allows LLM. You’d also need to inspect each and every package periodically to make sure none have started allowing LLM usage and once you remove LLM-allowed packages, that breaks every dependent package as well.
Basically, you’re going to want to move to some form of BSD, or start a new operating system from scratch.
start a new operating system from scratch.
I’m going to start my operating system with blackjack and hookers.
Ubuntu, Mint and PopOS are all based on Debian, so they will inherit the LLM code that Debian inevitably will accept now.
I’m going to say there’s not a chance in hell that this gets forked. Much like the systemd age verification topic, the outrage is primarily from the chronically online and the bots who influence them. This isn’t a population of people who have the actual technical capabilities to do anything productive, that’s why they have such a large online presence.
The outrage on social media is massively amplified by bots which is why these ‘movements’ never get passed the ‘spamming social media with outrage porn’ phase. It’s easy to fabricate and spin up 1000 social media bot accounts to post anti-AI content (ironically using LLMs to do so).
It isn’t easy to fabricate and spin up 100 competent developers who are so rabidly anti-AI that they will attempt to start a major new project
Don’t confuse comments and upvotes with reality. Social media metrics are easy to manipulate.
not sure… but i could imagine devuan (the old fork in regard to systemd) going the other way
The world needs more people that act on principles and take a stance.
Weird that he didn’t care when Linus Torvalds adopted basically the same policy to the kernel that serves as the foundation of the main Debian distribution. I have an inkling that there is more going on at Debian, not LLM use alone.
didn’t he? have you checked?
the main thing is that it’s an upstream problem. the linux kernel is used in nuclear missiles. if you want to stay on that kernel you have to take what you are given. in your own organisation you can at least try to change things.
He didn’t leave the Linux-based OS for Linus Torvalds himself stating a similar policy for the Linux kernel before Debian did.
Debian has a history of maintaining ancient kernels. But it’s hard to believe that he assumed Debian to just fork Linux…Nuclear missiles probably run vxworks or another rtos, not linux
FOSS nukes when?
the linux kernel is used in nuclear missiles
source:
Idk anything about this…but here is my Google results
Don’t think golden dome is actually implemented, though just some trump delusion…but apparently this Redhawk Linux is used in…
This is an educated guess but I think the entire US nuclear arsenal is so old that it predates Linux entirely.
If he resigned only now, he didn’t resign before. What is there to check? That is common sense. Linus allowed LLM use and he was fine with Debian building on it. After all, all LLM use is literal fascism in his eyes.
if he commented on it, for one.
I don’t think so. I got no sources or anything, but I think most nuclear missile silos and their software predate the linux kernel. And since we don’t really build nuclear weapons anymore but stick with the ones we already have, I don’t think that the linux kernel is really used in these kinds of sites.
However, that’s me guessing - wouldn’t say that I’m even 50% confident.
“AI scrapers break the web, to use this page you’ll need JavaScript enabled.”
The ironic…
i understand there are a lot of facist AI companies, but how can an entire technology be facist?
That’s like saying space travel is facist because pretty much all of it was built on work by literal nazi scientists.
Do we throw out all the related advances too? Satellite communications, GPS, etc.?
Go fuck yourself with your tired, “bUt WhAt aBoUt VaCciNeS,” argument.
tools shape our perception of the world, and in turn us. neutrality is tacit approval. when a fascist company develops a technology, and some people say “we don’t want technology developed by fascists”, the “compromise” position is “you could have some technology developed by fascists”
if you look into operation paperclip and all the politics following that, you’ll see that there was a ton of pushback. the german scientists were literal nazis, but in the worst way; they were the compromising kind. only that the compromise was between “kill people” and “don’t kill people”, so the result was “kill some people”. and living in that environment changes your perception of the world. as the song goes, “once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? that’s not my department” says wehrner von braun
“The essence of technology is by no means anything technological.”
Over the past 5 years or so, I have really come to despise the phrase “just a tool”.
Honestly “just a tool” is the same as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. The phrase frames the context as if EVERY tool can have plenty of reasonable non-destructive purposes.
One argument is that those who make LLMs have a high amount of control their output. It’s giving a lot of control of open source to the whims of those companies to become reliant on LLMs
Think about the potential for providers to add plausibly deniable backdoors, general lower quality code, etc. when they think you are working on a project they care about. The precedent is there with Anthropic publicly stating that Fable was built to intentional sabotage quality when they think you are working on AI research related tasks or distillation. That kind of stuff can be subtly baked into open models as well**___**
Good question. I think there’s some truth to it. Somehow a lot of fascist people love AI. For example a certain president posts a lot of gen AI pictures, sometimes videos of himself dropping poo on his population. Other regimes just use it to manifest some video surveillance dystopia. And to be frank, there is no other tech to enable surveillance on that level.
It’s also a good tool to manipulate people on a grand scale, make custom propaganda, exploit psychology…
LLMs and related systems are made in a completely top-down way. They’re under control of the Chinese government and a few select US tech oligarchs like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman and their companies. They get to shape it. And they’re kind of Anti-Robin-Hoods. They steal from the poor, the workers and artists, and give to the rich. They get more power and money. And I didn’t yet mention Peter Thiel and some other companies who are working on some AI assisted version of doomsday, or at minimum some scifi dystopia with predictive policing and that kind of stuff.
Also comes with a few fascist side-effects. Like disposession of land, polluting the environment and poor people get to suffer the consequences of climate change. Rich people can just buy a new house and clean water…
I mean not all AI is fascist. But I see lots of reason to believe it aligns well with fascist wet dreams. And not so much with their opponents.
On contrary: Space travel helps all of us. I get to learn new science things. Get to use my sat nav in the car… 400 TV channels…
The printing press has been a crucial tool for fascist propagandists ever since its inception. Does that make the technology fascist?
I just got done reading The Demon Haunted World, and can’t help but draw a comparison. It’s perfectly reasonable to be afraid for the future of democracy right now, but it really feels like people think AI is powered by literal sprites, dancing around on puppet strings at the whim of the fascists who summoned them. It’s math. Math isn’t ideological. It is simply a fact of the universe that an LLM is possible.
Yeah, we have to make sure it is applied responsibly, because yeah it’s a very powerful phenomenon. Yes, they were made using stolen information, and I fully believe that all LLMs and training data should be fully open sourced for public use as a result, and making any profit from them is unethical. It’s stealing from Peter and Paul to sell to Peter and Paul.
But one day fascists are bound to fail, and you know what will still exist in the world that comes next? AI/LLMs/some future iteration of a transformer-based neural network. It’s not the first technology loved and/or invented by fascists, and it won’t be the last. But I think in a panic, people are willing to burn down anything in an 50ft radius of any fascist. Keep the knowledge, ditch the fascism, stop acting out of fear.
I really think those are two different pairs of shoes. The printing press allowed people to make information more accessible to the masses. A lot of people got more educated because of it. Of course as a tool it can also be used for evil. But in reality that’s not what happened. It’s mainly been used for good. It displaced some jobs, but that wasn’t the people’s jobs, but monks in the scriptorium. Other people got to learn to read and write because of it.
With AI on the other hand (or foot, to stick with the ‘pairs of shoes’ metaphor) it’s gonna be your job and the monks/aristocrats get to keep theirs, it’s the other way round. It’ll cost entry level jobs. We have reports on how it leads to deskilling. There’s a good chance it’ll make people more stupid. And on average they already got a 30sec attention span thanks to AI’s online predecessors.
And once we adopt it without “fear”, you’ll get schoolbooks with the information/propaganda the ministry of education prompted for.
It’ll also intensify all the biases and stereotypes out there. If you’re gay or black and the AI has been trained on white straight people’s information… Tough luck. It won’t work for you. I already got this, and I’m not even any of that. Called some shitty AI customer service and twice I had some non-standard issues. It’s never of any help with those. It’s good and efficient at handling the standard customer service case. But once you’re the outliar… There’s no training material and no proper procedure in the harness and you’re basically screwed. I think that’s kinda fascist to demand all people are some homogeneous flock of sheep, and they’re (inadvertandly?) thrown overboard.
The printing press is way more egalitarian. It doesn’t favour printing the bible over any other book. Heck, you can even print radical new ideas. AI will try to push you towards the old stuff it’s seen in the training material due to the way it works. And whatever the tech oligarchs deem acceptable.
I really don’t think it’s a neutral tool. It’s the opposite of that. And many tools aren’t neutral. For example guns. Some countries hand them out like there’s no tomorrow. Issue is, they’re force intensifiers and disproportionately used by criminals, mentally ill people… people with a will to use them for what they’re good at, accidents happen… You can have a look at the numbers and compare it to other countried where the citizens are more fearful of guns. Those put strict regulation on top and get 10x less crime in return. And an ungodly amount less gun violence. That’s because the world isn’t neutral towards small metal barrels which fire projectiles. You’d think they’re just a device. But it’s way more complicated than that once we factor in reality.
Consider that you’re comparing hundreds of years of the printing press without much lived-context, vs about 3 years of LLMs in the context of the country you live in. It’s not the case that when the printing press was invented, that suddenly everyone had access to a bunch of free, unbiased information. It was a complex piece of machinery, it took decades to be adopted widely, and when it did, it wasn’t in the hands of the proletariat at first. The people wielding it most effectively were kings. And in the present day, if you live in China today, odds are you are not nearly as pessimistic about the advent of AI as people in the west, primarily because your government has actively taken steps to make you feel safe. Most recently, China made it outright illegal to replace workers with AI. Say what you will about China, but I think americans would like to see something even 1/10th this effective right now.
I otherwise can’t disagree with your summary of the current sad state of AI. The only part I would contend with is that, while it can be misused to “make people more stupid”, when wielded correctly it is also a great tool for education. It is able to point you in the right direction of the information you’re looking for faster than any other algorithm. Like with any new information, you have to be trained in the ways of skepticism. You have to know how to vet the output for yourself. But it’s so much faster at finding that relevant information for vetting than combing through reams of irrelevant text, or renting time from a domain expert, if you’re privileged enough to have access to one. Used correctly, LLMs are an incredible accelerator for learning.
And while not all open models are full open-training, there are many viable open-weight models that you can both fine-tune on your own content, and run locally so that no one is MITMing your prompts; and they do rival the best that openai/anthropic/etc. have to offer. There is currently a whole ecosystem of normal people iterating on various open models outside of the purview of the oligarchs. Yes, we’re in a hardware shortage right now, which super sucks, but we’re still talking on the order of thousands to 10s of thousands to have your own model running, not hundreds of thousands to millions.
Outside of LLMs, we are seeing breakthroughs in healthcare. A year ago, doctors were leveraging AI to significantly speed up chemo treatment schedules, leading to a measurable number of lives saved. And just last week we saw Moderna announce a personalized cancer vaccine pass phase 3 testing! The ability to create a personalized vaccine that teaches your immune system how to fight your cancer cells in spite of them constantly mutating was thought to be impossible even 5y ago. Meanwhile, the work is still ongoing, but AI seems promising in its ability to approximate solutions to previously intractable problems in fusion power generation.
Issue isn’t the maths… It’s the fascists being in control of it. We need to get rid of those.
Yep, that’s all I’m claiming. To me, the active ingredient for fascism is fear. The internet could be full of all the slop propaganda that grok can cook up, but if people aren’t afraid of their neighbors or afraid of losing their livelihood, it’s all rendered powerless. We can take 100 specific steps to combat fascism, but to quote one of my favorite metal albums, “the fear is what keeps us here”.
Hmmh. I’m really unsure about how to compare timeframes. Those were medieval times. Everything was slow to impossible. Nowadays I can communicate information from here to America within a fraction of a second. Back then they weren’t even aware of the Americas. And there wasn’t any hardware store to buy the material needed. They had to invent the oil-based paint, have a bunch of workers dig up the metal, cut down trees, carpenters and goldsmiths… Nonetheless within 40 years they went from invention to 110 printing presses all across Europe. I think that’s crazy fast given the situation. And it really took off after that. Not long after we got it to carry the Reformation. And some century later the Scientific Revolution. (And none of those we’re good things for the kings.)
And 3 years ago is an arbitrary point in time. Neural networks were invented 70 years ago. It’s been 50 years since the first AI hype with expert systems. 40 years since the second AI winter. And now 4 years after the breakthrough of LLMs. It’s really difficult to compare the two. And I personally don’t think LLMs are anywhere close to proper AI. They’re great and all. But also fairly limited in what they can do. For example they can’t update their weights while running. So there’s no learning nor adapting to the environment. Even remembering something isn’t really possible and has to be added on top. And I wonder if we can make them reliable enough for some tasks. Seems impossible to me with current tech. We still need some time to develop the first customer service chatbot which isn’t vulnerable to prompt injection or which doesn’t on occasion “hallucinate” terms and services and procedures. And just lie to the customers.
I don’t really get what you mean by fear. It’s certainly a thing. But I don’t think it is mainstream complaint #1 anymore. I come from a culture where we often meet new things with a healthy(?) dose of skepticism. I don’t see anything wrong with that. And a lot of the criticism regarding AI isn’t concerned with fear. It’s about Elon Musk putting up 6 dirty (and slightly illegal) gas power plants next to your backyard. Sam Altman polluting the environment and making electricity, computer chips and everything more expensive for you. And some idiots starting an investment bubble that requires AI to displace 30% of the human workforce by 203x or it will pop and have catastrophic effects on the stock exchange, including your retirement fund. I mean I’m positive we’ll manage to get by in some form… But I think it’s natural to feel a lot of rejection towards all of that.
I’m really unsure about how to compare timeframes.
Totally fair. I think the relevant difference is that we’re still in the middle of the advent of this technology, we still have a hardware shortage that limits access to it, and it began as we were already entering a crisis era and economic downturn. From our vantage point, we only see the damage caused by the tech, not the potential long term impact, and we are (rationally) assuming the worst.
But if a new scientific revolution could happen as a result of AI for the betterment of humanity, do we want to accidentally prevent that by throwing it out with fascism?
(And if that is in our future, the next question historians 500y from now will ask is, could it have even been avoided? Much like we could ask now, was there a timeline where the original printing presses were destroyed out of fear of corrupting the masses? And realistically, how long would that have lasted before a new one was built?)
3 years ago is an arbitrary point in time. Neural networks were invented 70 years ago.
But we both know that when people say “fuck AI” they’re not talking about anything other than generative AI made in the last few years.
I don’t really get what you mean by fear…I think it’s natural to feel a lot of rejection towards all of that.
Fear has defined the Trump era for the last 10+ years. It is why countries all over the world are tilting to the right. It is the necessary ingredient for fascism to gain traction. It happened during the great depression all over the world, even in the US, and it’s happening now.
I’m not saying it’s an unnatural or unreasonable reaction, I’m saying it’s causing democracies to be prone to rash decisions. If you recall, this thread is about the use of AI in FOSS projects. The most prominent sentiment by 99% of people in this thread is “fuck AI, burn it down and anyone who uses it”. And if that fear-based reaction is what prevents well-meaning, intelligent open source maintainers from being allowed to leverage an objectively powerful phenomenon to responsibly and ethically usher in a new scientific/FOSS revolution, we would be remiss to stifle that opportunity out of fear.
Hmmh. I sometimes struggle to emphasize. I don’t live in the US. Culture and politics are a bit different here. We certainly have those dynamics as well. But I don’t think we’re (yet) at a majority of the population living in constant fear. We Germans tend to be less open towards new technology, though. For other reasons. We always sell our souls to American big tech eventually. But it’s always met with some initial reluctance/backlash.
I’m not sure about your point about fascism. I mean there’s some inflation with how people use the word… But proper fascism is really, really bad. All my grandparents had to suffer through it. Somehow they survived. But it cost like 70 million lives. And most cities here were turned into burning piles of trash. You kinda want to avoid it. Even at a substantial cost. And my place isn’t the only example. We have plenty wars and fascists on earth. Constantly. Fear isn’t the right tool to avoid it, though. Being clever and education are good strategies.
Ultimately it’s certainly hard to judge some hypothetical future. I still don’t see any reason to completely sell out to some specific big companies. I mean they sometimes do come up with good products. Sometimes their path to profit is scattered with dead bodies. Could be anything unless there’s accountability and regulation. And it’s not either/or… We could as well have some less nasty company do the research. Or do it a bit more slowly… Maybe that’ll take 10 years longer but we get less people killed and less permanent harm done to the environment. There’s not just one path forwards.
I fully agree on the atmosphere and sentiment,. It’s really hard to talk about AI. Especially online. Everyone is yelling and doing identity politics. Most people don’t have a clue how it works. And/or they believe in some falsehoods. I think the best way is to just tell it how it is. Quite a lot of people won’t listen. But they’re not listening anyways.
Be a bit careful with the evil companies, though. I don’t think Meta, Anthropic, OpenAI, Elon Musk or the Chinese government act in your, or my best interest. I’d advise not to be naïve about that. They always tell nice stories. Promise all kinds of stuff. Politicians do the same thing. It’s their job. It doesn’t have to come true, though, by any means. In fact the more they promise, the more likely it is they’re trying to manipulate you.
This isn’t really connected to the technology and science though. Whether AI is going to succeed and improve from a scientific perspective is yet another can of worms. I still strongly doubt LLMs are going to be the direct predecessor to strong AI or something properly “clever”, but we’ll see about that.
You’re totally right about the current state of affairs with AI technology. It has been misused for net negative outcomes…
But. The very first application of nuclear fission was wiping out two cities in the blink of an eye. Should we have immediately declared all nuclear tech as evil/facist and thrown it away? Of course not… there was a lot of fear mongering about nuclear power in the years that followed, but i’m glad that we now have clean, reliable nuclear generators and other nuclear enabled tech.
I don’t think this is a valid way to argue. Let’s assume what you say is true, and think again:
Humanity declares all nuclear fission to be fascist tech and never develops mutual destruction, nor nuclear power plants. Now they have some oil crisis in the 70s and they’re forced to invest massively in renewables. Develop high yield solar cells earlier than we did. Now it’s 2000. The whole planet runs on clean energy, in fact there’s cheap energy in abundance. Economy is booming and by 2020 everyone has a flying car. Also the cold war never happened and everyone in the middle east has been living in peace for 50 years because there wasn’t many proxy wars between the US and USSR… Awesome! It was exactly the right move to immediately declare it evil and throw it out.
(Subsequently they have to deal with the massive energy surplus during daytime. That’s bled off in large datacenters and used to calculate the cure to cancer, the flu etc, which is done by 2030. Now they’re calculating the holy grail.)
Are you actually saying nuclear power is an inherently facist technology that should have been ended before it started?
Space travel, satellites, and all related tech are also facist
IBM worked with the nazis, so throw out your phone and your computers…
nothing in this world will ever pass lemmy’s purity tests…
Honestly, i’m pretty sure both of us are on the same page… but lemmy demands that things be black and white, good and evil. You havr to be 100% against AI or be labelled a facist enabler
I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding.
You laid down a hypothetical situation. It was kinda your idea to talk about an alternate reality where humanity thinks nuclear is fascist… You said lets assume everyone thinks it is, what would be the consequences? And I said, yeah, let’s assume that for the sake of argument. And I went with it. That doesn’t make it my opinion.
I guess what I mainly wanted to say is: We’re writing science fiction stories here. Nobody knows what would have happened if history had been very different. You’re simply asserting it would have turned out bad. But it could also have turned out great. All we know is this timeline. So we’re bound to think every change from the status quo must be worse. But we don’t necessarily live in the best of possible worlds. Maybe the absence of nuclear power would be bad. Maybe it’d be great, as I laid down. Why shouldn’t it?
Please let’s stop with the escalation here. Nobody talked about IBM or space travel. And we’re definitely on the same page with refusing to make everything some radical extreme.
You can train a model. Today.
I’m flattered you think I have the money for that, but I really don’t. People do all kinds of silly stuff as a hobby. But even engineering an airplane in my garage is more achievable than this. And then they bought up all the computer chips and GPUs to make it even more unaffordable. And the way law works, I’ll go to jail after pirating 20 books. It’s just the tech oligarchy who’s allowed to steal. That’s another level of associated fascism. We don’t get equity. There’s different rules for different people.
You got a spare $80 million laying around to train one?
I don’t care for sea lions, since I can train a model on my machine today.
Calling out the top-end number of the broligarchs makes you sound like you are either attempting to be sensationalist - or worse are arguing about something you don’t fully understand
Care to share your achievement? So we can learn something?
Sure, because what we need is more environmental destruction.
This comment makes no sense. How is training a local model on my machine destroying the environment?
Search up on TESCREAL!
Why would I of you’re not even impressed or shocked or whatever by it to tell us what it is or why we would want to
Tell us more. Your ideas sound unique.
Honestly it feels like I’m taking crazy pills some days. I run local models on my system, and the technology is legitimately fascinating. I am not talking about the broligarchy, merely the underlying technology is weird and fun to play with.
One thing is for certain - the box Pandora had this thing lying around in has been kicked open, and it cannot be shut. We’ll just have to figure out what that means for all of us.
i understand there are a lot of facist AI companies, but how can an entire technology be facist?
AI companies and governments are spreading anti-ai propaganda to push for regulations that will benefit them and limit the usage people can do of the technology.
Respect to Antoine. Having principles that are worth a damn is a rare trait amongst developers these days.
Surprising that it was even an option.
There were 8 options and Debian has ranked choice voting. This was actually around the middle of the spectrum of options, so with half voting most to least restrictive and the other vice versa, the middle of the road choice won.
And here I was suspecting myself of looking for elitism for my thoughts of switching to some *BSD system
Yeah, I just heard the results of the vote yesterday (been traveling), so I plan on trying to replace Debian with NetBSD on my laptop as soon as I catch up post-vacation.
the distro you like is enshitifying so you’re switching to an OS with an even more permissive, business-friendly license, huh? why not find another GPL OS instead?
because I am not switching. another Linux project gives out some suspicious sounds, so I find myself thinking that moving to another OS altogether might turn out a good idea after all, besides the fun of learning something new
Project is permissive. Company takes it and distributes binary. Nerds don’t use it and look for the og, since the license forces the company to disclose that they just did that in a way or another. The end.
Project is copyleft. Company takes it and distributes source via GitHub file uploading a zip named after a date or some dumb shit. The original maintainer is now bullied into adapting the code. Sooner or later, the company now has influence over the project. Which is how we ended up with that Debian decision the top post is about, and with completely undocumented drivers right inside of the official Linux tree.
Is there another GPL OS instead? I am a fan of the GNU Hurd, but sadly I cannot run it on my hardware. The team of devs is really small, and it is amazing what they have done in all these years.
there is Gloire OS based on the Iron Clad kernel, partially formal proofed written mostly in Ada, their git repositories can be found in Codeberg, there is Genode OS which follows Qt style GPL with caveats, where one corporate entity sells commericial licenses, and holds full copyright through CLA
Are these usable on hardware, and daily drivable?
Sheesh get a grip
Lemmy getting a grip. Ha, that’s a good one. This place is a fascinating case study for severe mental illness.
Weak bate. Keep trying.
Sheesh get a grip.
You put that incredibly abrasively, and the analogy is questionable (as we are talking dev tooling here).
…But your point is technically correct.
Contributors who you will NOT like contribute to useful projects. And your contributions will get used for things you don’t like. That is, indeed, how open software works, and what makes it inclusive.
Yea it is called a false equivalence you can dispel it with reason. But no one has tried because they are trying to circlejerk and I am abrasive.
K
So Open-Source and FOSS projects collectively decided that they want to jump on half-sunken ship in the middle of the ocean?
Amazing.
Time to learn HolyC and make your own
forkdenomination of TempleOS xDhalf-sunken ship
If you think the ship is ever sinking I’ve got bad news for you…
They can only burn so much money before investors stop giving it.
Is it a half sunken ship? I’ve been following AI is software for a while now, even though all signs point to failure and crash, it just keeps going and people adopt it more.
Hot take: LLMs is the best thing has happened to open source movement:
- software copyright is defeated and basically eliminated in practice
- reverse engineering is so accessible that proprietary protocols cannot be hidden and can be reimplemented by AI agents as free software
- open weight LLMs are incredibly competitive and run on general hardware
- linux is de facto winner in all computing and rising in desktop and gaming niches
We’re literally in the golden age of free software
Llms have been great for finding and fixing bugs and cranking out code, but the systems that allow for generation of code at a direct cost of dollars as opposed to the overhead of managing and employing programmers aren’t under the intense pressure to not redo old work and so are disincentivized from either creating or contributing to open source projects.
@drmoose @Grandwolf319 Assuming you place zero value on quality, yeah this is great.
You’re conflating open source and free software with public domain. Open source software licenses are completely dependent on software copyright. This means that if software copyright were eliminated, open source licenses would become completely unenforceable. We may be headed in this direction anyway, but I just thought I would make the point.
Copyleft exists only because of copyright. If there is no copyright there’s no longer a need for copyleft.
I completely disagree. What’s the main thing the GPL does that is different from public domain or the complete absence of copyright?
It restricts how the code can be used in order to protect the writers and the consumers of the code. Without copyright and copyleft, any company can use any GPL code in any proprietary product they want, without sharing any of their changes and without even crediting the original writers. As an example, Microsoft could adopt the Linux kernel for Windows, heavily modify it, sell it, and stay completely silent about it, without any consequences. That’s what a world without copyright means for copyleft.
Sure but again this is only a problem if copyright exists. Stallman himself invented GPL due to frustrations of copyright. The permisiveness is default human behavior that was corrupted by evil people and terrible systems. The neutrrance of copyright just returns us to this default state of sharing.
It has been wild to see Linux users hope that the GPL is rendered unenforceable.
Why? The entire purpose of GPL is to counteract copyright. If there is no copyright we no longer need GPL either.
The GPL gives you the right to access and modify the source code of software you use. A lack of copyrights does not mean that the creators have to share the source code with you. In fact, it means that anyone can take GPL software and turn it into closed source software
@fruitcantfly @drmoose Just. Wrong. Clearly ‘Linux boosted’ is a worthless accolade.
That would be cool and all, but people stopped reading their code. At work if I can not explain every line of my PR, it will get rejected. I use it as a powerful tool but a lot of people just output code and think their trash belongs in production.
Although I agree with you, I had that issue well before AI was a thing:
“I dunno, I just copied it from this StackOverflow post…”
<cut to me raging that someone would do that>
Well Debian has been a fun ride for the last 20 years or so… Wonder what’s next…
Ask the people who were shouting about forking systemd… I’m sure they’ve created their techno-utopia fork world by now.
People really underestimate the amount of free labor provided by these FOSS groups. There is a reason that these flash in the pan outrage topics evaporate as quickly as they appear. The people who spend their lives arguing online are not the people who have the capability to replace all of the things that they’re attempting to destroy.
Yes we did. You just don’t know about it cause you have a superiority complex and a defeatist attitude at the same time. Bad recipe.
I’m devastated at your diagnosis
I’m sorry. It’s treatable though. Don’t worry.
Doc prescribes for you to try Devuan or Artix for a while.
FreeBSD
Well what would the disclosure requirement improve? It’s unenforceable and it just gets in the way of evaluating the code based on quality. Every code should have high standards. Bad llm code is just as bad as bad human code.
If a project allows llm contributions then disclosing it will only make people weary of the wrong things. Putting a badge on it is not helpful anymore if it’s allowed. I have seen good llm code and bad human code.
FYI it’s wary. Weary means you’re tired. Wary is to beware of something.
Bad llm code is just as bad as bad human code.
Bad LLM code is worse than bad human code. LLMs sanitize out markers that humans use to catch and correct mistakes.
I have experienced both.
What wrong things?
Code is a liability. The only thing that balances it out is people who understand the code. The people are the asset.
If you contribute LLM-generated code but not your understanding, you’ve essentially taken out a loan in the maintainers’ names.
Not only the contributor has to understand code. There have always been flyby contributers that just add their code and that’s it. So if a PR adds code that cannot be maintained by others it can’t be added. That is part of the review process. That is part of evaluating based on quality. It’s unimportant if a human or an llm wrote something unmaintainable.
Building tech debt you never pay down is the way you kill open source projects.
The Free Software Foundation of Europe recently published an article detailing why it’s legally quite important for developers to disclose and carefully catalog which code was created by LLMs.
https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html
Recommendations for AI usage in Free Software contributions
With these issues in mind, the recently published Recommendations When Using LLM-Backed Generative AI Systems for FOSS Contributions by the SFC outlines some of the legal difficulties for copyright and licensing that generative systems have created for software developers who wish to write, maintain, or contribute to Free Software projects.
Notably for the purposes of this article, the SFC recommends the full recording and disclosure of how and when an AI tool was used to assist in the creation of a contribution. As stated by the SFC:
“FOSS project leaders cannot make good decisions about LLM-gen-AI policy if they cannot survey which contributions were assisted, and how much they are assisted. Part of the contribution process should (at least) include a disclosure of what LLM-gen-AI system was used, its version (as these system change over time), and a brief description of how the system assisted the contributor. This information should be included in a machine-readable format in commit logs."
Indeed, such disclosure can be an important foundational step to allow for the accurate assessment of the copyrightability of code that has been assisted or generated by AI tools, in order to assess their licensability into Free Software. Open and clear disclosure is a helpful step for the Free Software community to maintain a healthy licensing ecosystem, which is currently threatened by the legal uncertainties that come with the advent of generative AI.
Additionally, it is worthwhile for developers to document in some capacity the extent of human work that they have done in their software projects, whether it be the writing of code, the selection and arrangement of components within the project, or the extent of human modification of machine generated content.
IANAL but from my naive perspective it might make more sense to not disclose this because no one can prove that something was written by AI if no one discloses it. That means for me that any claims that a certain part cannot be copyrighted are hard or even impossible to make.
The point isn’t so much the quality of the code itself.
The point is that AI is an inefficient power-wasting piece of trash, and the data centres that power it have significant negative impacts on people and the environment, all for the sake of devs being lazy idiots. And you’d have to be an idiot to let AI take away your skills.
The point isn’t so much the speed and comfort of the commute itself.
The point is that a car is an inefficient power-wasting piece of trash, and the oil rigs that power it have significant negative impacts on people and the environment, all for the sake of commuters being lazy idiots. And you’d have to be an idiot to let a car take away your mobility.
This but unironically
Dude, no.
Upvoted with the hope that you’re not trying to be ironic
We should all live in caves again, and wipe our butts with a handful of dry leaves.
The point is also that this is the pre-enshittification version of AI, and any person or system foolish enough to become dependent on it will get exploited to the best of AI companies’ abilities.
pre-enshittification?
Then what the hell are the models Windows is relying on if this is the GOOD stuff?
the opposite of “enshittified” isn’t “good.” some stuff sucks for fresh, new reasons before it enshittifies and turns to full on exploitative rent-seeking.
for example, anthropic quietly pulled claude code from their pro subscriptions and made it a separate subscription. that’s enshittification. and stupid AI bros are gonna fall for it every time.
Oh so it just goes from bad to worse? I see then
Yeah, my laptop is totally going to exploit me. I better not get hooked on using it. I’ll just leave it packed up in the box if came in, unplugged from the wall, so it doesn’t get a chance. /s
If only there were some community of people who valued using free and open source software so we had options that were not dependent on the whims of companies. Then we could have software that we could depend on that isn’t dependent on the whims of corporations.
Throwing out AI because there are AI companies who causing harm is like giving up on Operating Systems because of the plethora of bad acts made by Microsoft.
I agree that everyone should using OpenAI, Anthropic or any of the other companies which were created to spend trillions of dollars buying up all computer hardware on the planet while building fossil fueled datacenters.
That isn’t the same as thinking that the actual machine learning technology itself is somehow inherently bad. There are many open weight models and FOSS projects that lets people use AI without contributing to the capitalist orgy that’s causing all of the secondary harms.
People conflating AI technology and AI companies are failing to diagnose the issue that we’re facing.
And all those AI models where made by requiring these companies and their data centers and their millions of dollars.
And all the cars were made requiring companies with their factories and their millions of dollars. And all the computers. And all the… Everything! WTF is your point?
Exactly! Well said. So many idiots here who think that AI=data center.
Open weight != open source.
You can can inspect open source software. You can compile the source into binary. You cannot inspect open binary. Well, you can, but it’s difficult. Can anyone ever inspect the fucking weights in a useful way? They are just bias numbers.
and the death blow is when more like-minded developers do the same… there won’t be enough left that would vote to change policy to try to lure some back.
Didn’t we have the same outrage and series of rage-quitting when SystemD was introduced?
Difference is, Systemd wasn’t specifically being used to facilitate fascist governments surveiling their populace or contribute to global warming like LLMs are.
Systemd wasn’t specifically being used to facilitate fascist governments surveiling their populace or contribute to global warming like LLMs are.
Well systemd does require electricity to run, so unless you’ve got your own solar panels its probably contributing to global warming in its own little way.
And the biggest models today are Chinese. Terribly oppressive and paranoid government but not fascist.
UhM aCkShUaLlY sYsTeMd DOES uSe ElEcTrIcItY, ChEcKmAte
Well, it is true 😅
Actual clown.
This motherfucker tries to pretend he’s not an AI evangelist and types shit like this.
