Guess we don’t deserve efficient, reliable, or performant software according to AI bros
we don’t even deserve to breathe air according to AI bros.
You know who doesnt waste precious air by beathing it? AI bots.
Honestly we are wasting our air resources on any uneccessary fleshbots wandering around drooling and spouting delusions about LLMs not actually being the next step of humanities evolution.not gonna lie, you had me at the first half.
Sad but true
Glorious gentoo
[https://www.zdnet.com/article/top-6-ai-free-linux-distros/](This article did not age well at all.)
Everything will be infested eventually.
Even if Datacenters fall and tokens are expensive AF, there are enough accessible models that the cat isn’t going back into the bag.
Humans are … opportunistic. If most can do a half-assed job for almost no effort and get by, they will.
come to devuan
Who?
fascist-backed technology to be known.
And you’ve lost me already
Word choice or disagreement with the assertion as a whole?
Cars are fascist-backed technology. So are computers. Highlighting such a fact is irrelevant.
Cars are fascist-backed technology.
Ford cars are certainly fascist-backed. Volkswagons, too. Idk if I’m going to stick the label on the Olinia or the Renault.
So are computers.
The Chilean Fascist Augusto Pinochet famously shot all of his country’s computers for being Communist.
Highlighting such a fact is irrelevant.
Weird that you’d bring it up. Weirder that you’d get so many of your facts wrong.
You’re pointing out brands. Brands can be fascist.
The OP is pointing out technology. Technology cannot be fascist.
You’re pointing out brands.
I’m pointing out corporations founded and financed by fascist networks and leaders.
The OP is pointing out technology. Technology cannot be fascist.
Modern AI tools are extensions of their corporate parents. They are some of the least host-agnostic technological advances made to date. Their construction, their access, their modes of function, their material output, and their waste product are all informed by the ideological motivations of their primary sponsors.
In the same way that a car becomes an anti-pedestrian agent of social change and reshapes the territory to accommodate it, the technology of AI reshapes the material conditions of its associated workforce and the function of its output. These changes are fascist in character, in the same way parking lots and highway overpasses and suburban neighborhoods are made into tools of segregation and eugenics.
They don’t have to function that way, but they become so when they are implemented by business executives with fascist motivations. So the Ford Motor Car does more than just exist as a piece of technology. It functions as a tool of social oppression. In the same vein, the Olinia moves us in the opposite direction.
Technology can and has been developed to serve fascist ends. The engineering behind an object can explicitly serve a political agenda.
Good luck convincing a lemming of that, they are all fucking brainwashed to hate AI as a whole.
It’s not, they have different potential consequences
Everything has different potential outcomes…
What does that even mean?
Exactly. It’s all nonsense. But we need to single out this nonsense in particular and hate it. Because it has different potential outcomes…
It’s not allnnonsense. LLMs are being used to “solve” small problems but pollute way more than normal datacenters, way more than you using your personal computer etc. You seem heavilly invested in denying any bad thing from LLMs …
Debian, destroying Linux since 2015.
Elaborate? I don’t want to vote just yet, maybe it’s a take I could agree with (what did they start doing 2015?)
The first debian version with systemd was released that year.
The without disclosure part tells everything you need to know here. If it’s such a benign and maybe even beneficial thing to do then why are you hiding it? What possible reason could you have not to label that? In an open source Community shouldn’t everything like that be known?
We saw this play out with GMO foods:
If it’s such a benign and maybe even beneficial thing to do then why are you hiding it? What possible reason could you have not to label that?
later:
It’s specifically labelled, therefore it must be bad right? If we didn’t need to worry about it, it wouldn’t be labelled.
In the us anyway the food is labeled as bio-engineered, and everyone still buys it
I wonder what’s the reason to make it optional? I think I’ve seen this approach with other projects as well. Isn’t transparency and accountability a good thing? Also, this kind of information helps immensely when reading pull requests or silly bug reports. And Debian acknowledge there might be licensing issues. So it might become some sort of liability to them once it taints everything and we can’t even tell?! So why? What’s the upside? Adorn oneself with borrowed plumes and not being forced to disclose the fact? Or too much bookkeeping?
I think it’s just the simple fact that there’s no way to enforce it
With systems starting to move to watermarking tech a lot of them will actually be detectable.
Either way that doesn’t make it a bad idea or less useful.
There are ways to enforce it. Yeah, you won’t be able to make everyone follow the rule, but it’s the same with any law and any public policy and they’re still valuable. You don’t make campaigns against DUI because you expect everyone to stop doing it, as that’s a nirvana fallacy, you make them because you expect them to reduce DUI.
Which tells a lot about how good they are. Slop is slop because it’s bad, but a high quality PR isn’t
Because the idea is to judge the code by its quality, not by who or what wrote it.
I think that’s a commendable effort. Usually I do it the same way. Just feels massively unfair to me towards human contributors. I’ve seen the AI pull requests and bugreports come in. And it’s very time consuming to deal with them. They’re long, convoluted, touch a lot of code… There’s frequently a good amount of “hallucinations” in them, because they’re sent in autonomously or by people who don’t know what they’re doing. There might be dozens of them in quick succession as with the larger projects. They eat up time and effort which is now missing to deal with human contributions or wishes. My own opinion is: Transparency would help a lot to prioritize stuff. I mean AI isn’t sentient, and as long as that holds true, I’d rather treat people with respect and the amount of attention they deserve… (In contrast to a level playing field between human and machine… Because the machines will easily beat us by sheer volume.)
True, but I think the kind of people who send those monster PRs either already have AIs cosign it or they aren’t reading the policy anyway. There have also been a number of studies that show LLMs usually ignore this kind of instruction.
Hmmh. Sure. People also deliberately instruct their agents not to reveal the fact. I can empathize with that, because there’s all these people out there yelling at you, and launching shit storms.
I believe the uptake in “co-authored by …” is due to some companies making it the default setting in their frameworks. It’s to some degree Microsoft being nice to us, not necessarily benevolence of the people sending in those PRs. Doesn’t really matter to me though. It’s enough to make me happy if that’s attached to some commit or PR. I don’t care how it got there, as long as it fits the purpose.
Edit: And thanks for your comment. I don’t think I agree. Nonetheless this might be the answer to my question.
There are so many levels of LLM involvement and once you make this distinction you actually have to devote some of your limited resources to define and enforce it. So I think it might not be strictly beneficial, but possibly also have downsides.
Where would you draw the line at which point it counts as LLM involvement? Having one run as some sort of spell/syntax checker? Doing some research (and being influenced by it) before hand coding something? Having it create a working prototype and then reimplementing it by hand? If you use code from somewhere else to solve a problem and ai use has not been disclosed for this code, do you automatically have to assume LLM usage was involved or is there plausible deniability?
I think in the end you’d have to use too many resources check it and debate where the line is drawn, when the real question is how you retain human knowledge and engagement within your community.
Just disclose how you used it.
“Just” like with GDPR, “just” follow the rules for personal data management. In reality, compliance stuff like that is expensive to implement.
So if you are going to require it, don’t pretend it is without cost. Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.
It’s a good question for the people using it but the point is that you can really verify if someone is using it or not
Conversely… if it’s so benign, why should it have a label?
Not really worth discussing - it’s not benign, and it can be made purposefully not benign by a third party without notification or knowledge. A third party who has already demonstrated a penchant for world domination, both technologically and physically.
Code in general is proven not to be benign
Excuse you my code doesn’t even compile properly, so it can not be malign by definition.
I should hope that open source developers are exclusively using open source models that are trained on open source projects.
I mean, I would think, at least. It seems to me that most of the people in charge of big projects are usually FOSS purists.
That’s part of the reason why AI scrapers are breaking the small web. FOSS purists really have no significant defense against it aside from Anubis.
Real DoS protection comes from capacity, which costs serious dollars, especially in this day and age where botfarms can be hired by the hour for rather cheap and record-breaking attacks seem to happen like monthly.
The alternative is using a CDN, but there are none that align with FOSS ideals. And for CDNs to be really effective, you need them to break open TLS and handle the decrypted traffic, which raises privacy concerns on top.
But anyways…most license agreements would make it a requirement that if you’re using an open-source model, that it be properly attributed, right?
I should hope that open source developers are exclusively using open source models that are trained on open source projects.
Most developers who use these tools (even FLOSS developers) appear to be using the corporate owned models that were definitely trained on both proprietary source code and code that is incompatible with the GPL license. Some EU courts have also already judged that LLM code cannot be copyrighted, which also means it cannot be licensed as GPL.
Currently, all code generated with an LLM has a 3 to 10% chance of unknowingly plagiarizing the copyrighted code it was trained on, and any FLOSS project that uses it is making a huge gamble that their codebase won’t be scanned by corporations in the future looking for violations to sue about, shut down rival FLOSS projects, etc.
It would be Useful for doing a retrospective on whether AI is helpful or not
Eye contact is benign for most of us. We still give it a context warning in civilized circles. It costs us almost nothing, and lets people make an informed decision what you engage with.
Respect to Antoine. Having principles that are worth a damn is a rare trait amongst developers these days.
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.
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.
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.
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…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.
He didn’t have the same reaction at that specific point of time. That does not mean he was fine with it, but even if it was, maybe people change? Insane conclusion, I know. Stop with the black and white thinking.
if he commented on it, for one.
“AI scrapers break the web, to use this page you’ll need JavaScript enabled.”
The ironic…
@ProdigalFrog
> “Pretending to have a “neutral stance” when faced with fascism is not neutrality, it’s active collaboration.”Bars. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy decision, I hope Antoine gets to keep his peace undisturbed.
Fascism is when people can use AI.
Not on its own, but an unfortunate goal of fascism is ruining education so that people have opinions like yours
So you agree with me, that AI is not fascist, but at the same time you say that one of goals of fascism is for people to think that AI is not fascist.
Am I reading it right?
You are, in fact, not reading that right.
Let me spell it for you because you apparently fell victim to the previously mentioned attack on education: AI is a tool. Like any tool it is not inherently evil, but the fascists love to take potentially useful tools and turn them around to cause as much suffering as possible. In this case, AI (more specifically LLMs) is used to make people reliant on it by getting them addicted to outsourcing all their problem solving skills while also reducing the value of art and artists of all types so they can take the money that artists would have made and also control ‘art’ (can’t have any pesky artists drawing pictures of people beating the nazis up) all the while sucking up every single data point about you.
If that’s all too complicated for you to understand, I guess you could over simplify it as “fascism is when AI”
Does that mean internet is fascist? Search engines? Calculators? Writing?
All of those things outsource your congnitive skills.
Almost nobody is saying that AI art generation is a complete subsitute for conventional art.
Even if all of that were true, it wouldn’t make AI fascist, but totalitarian.
Acting as if using an LLM is similar to using a calculator or search engine is a ridiculous comparison and further proves it’s not worth engaging with you further
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
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.
I require a tone indicator.
Dude, no.
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.
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 avoid 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.
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 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.
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
Usually in the context of profit milking by shareholders influencing that decline.
When did Anthropic make Claude Code a separate subscription? I ask because it is still listed as part of the Pro subscription tier on their website. And because I haven’t seen the shit-storm that would no doubt ensue if they did that
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
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 xDIs it a half sunken ship? I’ve been following AI in software for a while now, even though all signs point to failure and a crash, it just keeps going and people adopt it more.
It’s simply not sustainable – not a single one of the major AI companies has ever made a single dollar in profit from an AI product. They will eventually get sick of spending money and investors will stop handing them more. The only question is when the money flow stops.
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
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.
It has been wild to see Linux users hope that the GPL is rendered unenforceable.
Absolutely!
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
Sure but that’s mostly irrelevant in practice now. Gpl was notoriously unenforced so this aspect of “getting source code” almost never yielded to much in practice. FSF did a great job with limited resources it has but as code copyright is basically gone now and reverse engineering is so accessible we can actually empower real free software that is fully transparent and verifiable. If you imply that somehow we’ll start regressing existing tools to proprietary software I don’t see that at all.
@fruitcantfly @drmoose Just. Wrong. Clearly ‘Linux boosted’ is a worthless accolade.
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.
That’s not true at all. Like I said, copyleft relies completely on copyright. It was not at all created in opposition to copyright. It was created in opposition to proprietary (i.e., “unfree”) software. Here, from the Wikipedia article on Copyleft (emphasis mine):
The concept of copyleft was described in Richard Stallman’s GNU Manifesto in 1985, where he wrote:[6]
GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.
This is impossible to do without copyright existing. Like I mentioned before, without copyright laws, companies can take any code they wish, with any license, and use it in their proprietary software without sharing their modifications.
Another reference directly from the FSF: “Copyleft is a tool that works within copyright law” (emphasis mine)
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>
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.
half-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.
