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

AI in Linux

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: AI in Linux

#51

Post by Magicrafter13 »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #27
Magicrafter13 wrote: post #14

Torvalds' statement was incredibly disingenuous and rather sad. Every single commit is making a legal and political claim. Each commit is saying "this code is my original copyrighted work, and I am licensing it to the world per the requirements of the GNU GPLv2" (or "this code is someone else's work which was licensed under a compatible license, and I am integrating it into this GNU GPLv2 project"). That's not social…

> LLM generated code is a ticking time bomb, and is going to poison projects. Given the recent Anthropic ruling and OAI settlements, and the general stance of courts to look the other way when it comes to LLM use, I think an exemption for LLM-based software will be handwaved into existence (to my regret.)

That certainly seems to be the way the courts are going, which is also quite troubling, considering a plain understanding of software licenses and how LLMs work should clearly demonstrate the issues I outlined above.

I don't want to accuse the courts of intentionally siding with big corporations (I have no evidence to support such a claim anyway), but the only other option I see is that the courts are uninformed on either (A) the technology at play, or (B) the requirements of many software licenses.

Though, this should also apply to works licensed under variants of the Creative Commons (with Attribution), since once again, you can end up using parts of a work that requires attribution without even knowing that it's someone else's work (or at least without knowing its license requirements). There might be a better argument for generative AI images being transformative (though I think still a weak argument since you could almost certainly produce a 1:1 reproduction of a piece of training data, much like LLMs have already been pushed to doing with snippets from books).

Re: AI in Linux

#52

Post by lptrap »

atemerev wrote: post #31
ch71r22 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article isn't trying to find a particular example. It's talking about the overall stance of Linux on AI use. It argues that maintainers should consider political/moral/ethical arguments around climate change, effect on water supplies, energy prices, etc.

AI is just a tech like any other. Can be powered by CO2-neutral electricity like anything else. Otherwise, we'll have to protest against aluminum cans, airplanes, golf courts, lemon trees, and whatever else that uses water or electricity.

Aluminum cans had a distinct use. AI just invades a perfectly working industry that made Torvalds filthy rich and adds nothing- And he defends it because he is corporate now.

It is more like leaded fuel or DDT.

Re: AI in Linux

#53

Post by Legend2440 »

ch71r22 wrote: post #50
atemerev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is just a tech like any other. Can be powered by CO2-neutral electricity like anything else. Otherwise, we'll have to protest against aluminum cans, airplanes, golf courts, lemon trees, and whatever else that uses water or electricity.

That's a false equivalence. AI is not the same as aluminum cans. All technologies have political, social, ethical, and economic aspects, and not all technologies are the same. AI is not, in reality, powered by CO2-neutral electricity. As the article mentions, AI is the fastest-growing energy user in the world, so it probably merits a deeper look than aluminum cans.

AI is also an incredibly useful tool that could automate many industries, so it deserves some leeway because of the benefits it provides.

And while it is 'fastest-growing', it is small as an absolute share - around 0.2% of total world CO2 emissions.

Re: AI in Linux

#54

Post by kouteiheika »

NewJazz wrote: post #5
throwuxiytayq wrote: post #2

tl;dr Kernel devs should prompt less because it uses up water or something. Repeat after me: you can't put the cat back in the bag. Pandora's box is open. Sucks, but you have to learn to live with the reality that most developers will use AI to write code from now on.

This is a really disingenuous way to characterize the article (CO2 and global warming were much more of a focus than water, so your "or something" is doing a lot of work). Furthermore your comment ignores key arguments in the article, particularly the argument that contributors should not be forced to participate in AI-based ceremonies such as LLM code review that they may object to on personal ethical grounds.

> This is a really disingenuous way to characterize the article (CO2 and global warming were much more of a focus than water, so your "or something" is doing a lot of work).

Remind me please, how much exactly do data centers contribute to greenhouse emissions? And how much something like, I don't know, meat production contribute?

If my Googling is correct, apparently a single ChatGPT query produces ~0.004 kg CO2e/kg. Beef production contributes ~60 kg CO2e/kg. So you'd need to make, err... over 15k ChatGPT queries to produce as much emissions as eating a single kilogram of beef.

I've seen anti-AI protests. Where are all the anti-meat protests? I don't mean to engage in whataboutism, I'm just saying -- if your goal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere then there are bigger fish to fry, instead of just virtue signaling because there's a new trendy bogeyman in town.

Re: AI in Linux

#55

Post by throwuxiytayq »

YorickPeterse wrote: post #13
throwuxiytayq wrote: post #2

tl;dr Kernel devs should prompt less because it uses up water or something. Repeat after me: you can't put the cat back in the bag. Pandora's box is open. Sucks, but you have to learn to live with the reality that most developers will use AI to write code from now on.

There are many arguments one could make in favor of keeping AI around and using it, but your "argument" here is just about the lousiest and most naive argument one could possibly make, and shows a complete lack of empathy and understanding from your end.

I'm not making an argument to keep AI around or use it, I'm just saying that it stays. Reading comprehension on the internet these days...

Re: AI in Linux

#56

Post by atemerev »

lptrap wrote: post #52
atemerev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is just a tech like any other. Can be powered by CO2-neutral electricity like anything else. Otherwise, we'll have to protest against aluminum cans, airplanes, golf courts, lemon trees, and whatever else that uses water or electricity.

Aluminum cans had a distinct use. AI just invades a perfectly working industry that made Torvalds filthy rich and adds nothing- And he defends it because he is corporate now. It is more like leaded fuel or DDT.

Adds nothing? In what world are you living?

Re: AI in Linux

#57

Post by atemerev »

ch71r22 wrote: post #50
atemerev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is just a tech like any other. Can be powered by CO2-neutral electricity like anything else. Otherwise, we'll have to protest against aluminum cans, airplanes, golf courts, lemon trees, and whatever else that uses water or electricity.

That's a false equivalence. AI is not the same as aluminum cans. All technologies have political, social, ethical, and economic aspects, and not all technologies are the same. AI is not, in reality, powered by CO2-neutral electricity. As the article mentions, AI is the fastest-growing energy user in the world, so it probably merits a deeper look than aluminum cans.

Aluminum production is one of the largest electricity consumers out there, much larger than AI.

Re: AI in Linux

#58

Post by NewJazz »

HexDecOctBin wrote: post #36
NewJazz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temperatures during heat waves are exceeding 50°C in India, causing tens thousands of deaths. The AI built-out is by far the fastest growing energy consumer in the world, and they’re being built with fossil fuels, or drawing green energy demand away from replacing the fossil fuels depended on by other industries.

I hate how this ostentatious caring for Indians is used to push personal political goals. Want to help with global warming? Reduce your consumption. Stop driving, stop eating non-local food, stop buying things made off-shores or with supply chains that require global shipping. Move to a much poorer country (or just a poorer neighbourhood of your country) and live the way people there live. It seems like for much of W…

What makes you think I don't do all that stuff?

Re: AI in Linux

#59

Post by NewJazz »

9x39 wrote: post #39
NewJazz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temperatures during heat waves are exceeding 50°C in India, causing tens thousands of deaths. The AI built-out is by far the fastest growing energy consumer in the world, and they’re being built with fossil fuels, or drawing green energy demand away from replacing the fossil fuels depended on by other industries.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by... Share of global CO2: China 33% US 12% India 8% Russia 5% Japan 3% History didn't start in the last 12 months.

What's your point?

Re: AI in Linux

#60

Post by dminik »

Legend2440 wrote: post #53
ch71r22 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a false equivalence. AI is not the same as aluminum cans. All technologies have political, social, ethical, and economic aspects, and not all technologies are the same. AI is not, in reality, powered by CO2-neutral electricity. As the article mentions, AI is the fastest-growing energy user in the world, so it probably merits a deeper look than aluminum cans.

AI is also an incredibly useful tool that could automate many industries, so it deserves some leeway because of the benefits it provides. And while it is 'fastest-growing', it is small as an absolute share - around 0.2% of total world CO2 emissions.

So it can both outprice people as well as take their jobs? Well, leeway away.
Post reply on HN