Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gentoo AI Policy

wiki.gentoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 206 posts

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#41

Post by ses1984 »

simianwords wrote: post #32

> Ethical concerns. The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical concerns. Among them: Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in blatant copyright violations to train their models. Their operations are causing concerns about the huge use of energy and water. The advertising and use of AI models has caused a significant harm to employees and reduction of service quality. LLMs have been empowering…

The idea that models are transformative is debatable. Works with copyright are the thing that imbues the model with value. If that statement isn’t true, then they can just exclude those works and nothing is lost, right?

Also, half the problem isn’t distribution, it’s how those works were acquired. Even if you suppose models 44are transformative, you can’t just download stuff from piratebay. Buy copies, scan them, rip them, etc.

It’s super not cool that billion dollar vc companies can just do that.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#42

Post by shmerl »

simianwords wrote: post #32

> Ethical concerns. The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical concerns. Among them: Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in blatant copyright violations to train their models. Their operations are causing concerns about the huge use of energy and water. The advertising and use of AI models has caused a significant harm to employees and reduction of service quality. LLMs have been empowering…

I don't get this idea. Transformative works don't automatically equal fair use - copyright covers all kind of transformative works.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#43

Post by CursedSilicon »

simianwords wrote: post #32

> Ethical concerns. The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical concerns. Among them: Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in blatant copyright violations to train their models. Their operations are causing concerns about the huge use of energy and water. The advertising and use of AI models has caused a significant harm to employees and reduction of service quality. LLMs have been empowering…

That's quite a strawman definition of "copyright infringement" especially given the ongoing Anthropic lawsuit

It's not a question of if feeding all the worlds books into a blender and eating the resulting slurry paste is copyright infringement. It's that they stole the books in the first place by getting them from piracy websites

If they'd purchased every book ever written, scanned them in and fed that into the model? That would be perfectly legal

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#44

Post by simianwords »

ses1984 wrote: post #41
simianwords wrote: post #32

> Ethical concerns. The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical concerns. Among them: Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in blatant copyright violations to train their models. Their operations are causing concerns about the huge use of energy and water. The advertising and use of AI models has caused a significant harm to employees and reduction of service quality. LLMs have been empowering…

The idea that models are transformative is debatable. Works with copyright are the thing that imbues the model with value. If that statement isn’t true, then they can just exclude those works and nothing is lost, right? Also, half the problem isn’t distribution, it’s how those works were acquired. Even if you suppose models 44are transformative, you can’t just download stuff from piratebay. Buy copies, scan them, rip…

> In Monday's order, Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup supported Anthropic's argument, stating the company's use of books by the plaintiffs to train their AI model was acceptable.

"The training use was a fair use," he wrote. "The use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative."

I agree it is debatable but it is not so cut and clear that it is _not_ transformative when a judge has ruled that it is.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#45

Post by CursedSilicon »

logicprog wrote: post #4

There are reasonable ethical concerns one may have with AI (around data center impacts on communities, and the labor used to SFT and RLHF them), but these aren't: > Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in blatant copyright violations to train their models. I thought we (FOSS) were anti copyright? > Their operations are causing concerns about the huge use of energy and water. This is massively overblown. If…

>I thought we (FOSS) were anti copyright?

FOSS still has to exist within the rules of the system the planet operates under. You can't just say "I downloaded that movie, but I'm a Linux user so I don't believe in copyright" and get away with it

>the overall energy and water usage of AI contributed to by the actual individual use of AI to, for instance, generate a PR, is completely negligible on the scale of tech products.

[citation needed]

>Is this talking about automation? You know what else automated employees and can often reduce service quality? Software.

Disingenuous strawman. Tech CEO's and the like have been exuberant at the idea that "AI" will replace human labor. The entire end-goal of companies like OpenAI is to create a "super-intelligence" that will then generate a return. By definition the AI would be performing labor (services) for capital, outcompeting humans to do so. Unless OpenAI wants it to just hack every bank account on Earth and transfer it all to them instead? Or something equally farcical

>So did email.

"We should improve society somewhat"

"Ah, but you participate in society! Curious!"

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#46

Post by steveklabnik »

CursedSilicon wrote: post #43
simianwords wrote: post #32

> Ethical concerns. The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical concerns. Among them: Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in blatant copyright violations to train their models. Their operations are causing concerns about the huge use of energy and water. The advertising and use of AI models has caused a significant harm to employees and reduction of service quality. LLMs have been empowering…

That's quite a strawman definition of "copyright infringement" especially given the ongoing Anthropic lawsuit It's not a question of if feeding all the worlds books into a blender and eating the resulting slurry paste is copyright infringement. It's that they stole the books in the first place by getting them from piracy websites If they'd purchased every book ever written, scanned them in and fed that into the model…

That’s what happened; the initial piracy was an issue, but those models were never released, and the models that were released were trained on copyrighted works they purchased.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#47

Post by jjmarr »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #6

Perhaps the most telling portion of their decision is: Quality concerns. Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly looking, but meaningless content. They are capable of providing good assistance if you are careful enough, but we can't really rely on that. At this point, they pose both the risk of lowering the quality of Gentoo projects, and of requiring an unfair human effort from developers and users to…

I've been using AI to contribute to LLVM, which has a liberal policy.

The code is of terrible quality and I am at 100+ comments on my latest PR.

That being said, my latest PR is my second-ever to LLVM and is an entire linter check. I am learning far more about compilers at a much faster pace than if I took the "normal route" of tiny bugfixes.

I also try to do review passes on my own code before asking for code review to show I care about quality.

LLMs increase review burden a ton but I would say it can be a fair tradeoff, because I'm learning quicker and can contribute at a level I otherwise couldn't. I feel like I will become a net-positive to the project much earlier than I otherwise would have.

edit: the PR in question. Unfortunately I've been on vacation and haven't touched it recently.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146970

It's a community's decision whether to accept this tradeoff & I won't submit AI generated code if your project refuses it. I also believe that we can mitigate this tradeoff with strong social norms that a developer is responsible for understanding and explaining their AI-generated code.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#48

Post by paulcole »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #6

Perhaps the most telling portion of their decision is: Quality concerns. Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly looking, but meaningless content. They are capable of providing good assistance if you are careful enough, but we can't really rely on that. At this point, they pose both the risk of lowering the quality of Gentoo projects, and of requiring an unfair human effort from developers and users to…

How is it telling at all?

It’s just what every other tech bro on here wants to believe, that using LLM code is somehow less pure than using free-range-organic human written code.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#49

Post by ants_everywhere »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #35
perching_aix wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

You're missing a very important reason

4 - There is a very active anti-LLM activist movement and they care more about participating in it than they care about free software.

For example, see their rationale, which are just canned anti-LLM activist talking points. You see the same ones repeated and memed ad nauseam if you lurk on anti-AI spaces.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#50

Post by drdeca »

perching_aix wrote: post #27
sgarland wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But definitions can and are proven false. I hate it, mind you, but I can’t ignore it. For example, the usage of “literally” as an intensifier, e.g. “I literally died of laughter.”

Logical statements can be proven true/false. Definitions are not logical statements, they do not have truth values, therefore cannot be proven neither true, nor false. These are mathematical logic basics.

Yes. However, in some cases (though probably not the ones relevant here) a definition can be proven to be incoherent (or, to presuppose something false), which is vaguely similar to “being false”.
Post reply on HN