41–50 of 107 posts
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.
Why not fix all the issues with private jets and yachts first? Why don't they use regular public transportation as we all do? Instead, let's bash poor Clanker, who reviews kernel code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tens of thousands of people dying as a direct result of global warming! Not a problem! /s
No ones dead because Linux devs prompted a chat bot
Linus himself was made to sign the corporation-enforced CoC and "retreat" for "counseling".
He came back a changed man. Since then I've only see him a) use the CoC as a weapon for the old boys and b) parrot any current mainstream or corporate line.
That includes COVID vaccines, overt anti-Russian statements (when not warranted) and now AI. Would he still give Ndivia the finger? I doubt it.
These Gen-X millionaires cling to their positions and I'm sure the Linux Foundation has a well oiled HR department. Ted Tso also already interfered pro AI in the Debian discussion, where the pro-AI resolution is also championed by Canonical shills.
You can't fork, but you can use BSD.
This is a “everything is political” rant but now with 50% more AI.
I do not see how AI could be legally used on a GPL project. But if you want to use a non-AI OS, NetBSD banned the use of AI. Maybe some of the talent will move over there. They can sure use the help. As for AI in Linux, I am on the fence about that, but since Linux is pretty much funded/owned by large corporations, AI being forced on Linux is no surprise at all.
Are you a lawyer or an interlectual-property legal expert? Because if so, please, please elaborate on > I do not see how AI could be legally used on a GPL project. Too many people "believe" or "are convinced" about matters with AI and Open Source without any backup or sources.
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.
How do I know if comments like this come from a real person or a bot? Your suggestion that "anything popular cannot be morally wrong" is proposterous. It feels like you're trying to bait people into arguing with you in a way I associate with bot spam. But on the off change you're a real person - I will politely say - just because something is useful and popular doesn't meant it doesn't have negative externalities and…
Presumably, I'm a bot because you disagree with me.
> Your suggestion that "anything popular cannot be morally wrong" is proposterous. > just because something is useful and popular doesn't meant it doesn't have negative externalities and doesn't mean people shouldn't fight to make it better.
PREposterous. And I said nothing of the sort. It feels like you're hallucinating things nobody said in a way I strongly associate with bot spam.
> Improving emissions standards is important even though lots of people drive cars. The same can absolutely be true of AI.
The article did not at any point suggest that we need to improve and optimize AI. There is no magic wand that Linus can wave to measure how much water the incoming AI-assisted contributions are using. The guy should just go protest at a data center construction site or something; the article is pointless and completely fails to diagnose the actual problems with AI or propose viable solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you a lawyer or an interlectual-property legal expert? Because if so, please, please elaborate on > I do not see how AI could be legally used on a GPL project. Too many people "believe" or "are convinced" about matters with AI and Open Source without any backup or sources.
It's because, at least in the US, AI generated code cannot be protected by copyright. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ > https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell... > The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output. I'm not a lawyer either but if/when something like t…
> As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.
Then, since this stuff is changing a lot, they hedge with:
> The Office continues to monitor technological and legal developments to evaluate any need for a different approach.
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.
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.