Adopting and justifying #LLM output to develop Free/Libre kernel, operating system or application is an example of cognitive dissonance and moral contradiction.

[meanmicio@todon.eu]

Adopting and justifying #LLM output to develop Free/Libre kernel, operating system or application is an example of cognitive dissonance and moral contradiction. No system can be called itself free when is built on opression and ecocide.
Please consider these resources to find and support ethical / free applications and operating systems.
https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index
https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html
#NoAI #noslop #GenAI #SocialMedicine #ClimateEmergency

[alephoto85@fedi.bobadin.icu]

@meanmicio
I completely agree, and I'm trying, with no small amount of difficulty, to get rid of software that uses it, but it's getting harder because of its widespread use

That's why I want to thank you for the link.
I usually follow this list, but more sources are always helpful.




https://codeberg.org/ethical-foss/open-slopware

[meanmicio@todon.eu]

@alephoto85 Thank you for sharing this great link! I'm with you. While it's challenging, yet not impossible and we've been in similar situations already, and I think we are in a better position than early 90s . Now we have free operating systems, compilers and desktop environments that are also antiAI and that we should support

[meanmicio@todon.eu]

(cont..) There are several GNU/Linux distributions (Gentoo, postmarketOS, elementary, Parabola...) in the #NoAI list, and that is great! However, and unlike BSD systems, I wonder how they deal with the #linux kernel itself. Is the kernel included in the noAI policy? Is there something similar to linux-libre for LLM?
Any ideas / sources are much appreciated!
#NoAI #noslop #GenAI #SocialMedicine #ClimateEmergency

[divverent@misskey.de]

@meanmicio@todon.eu There might even be a GPL problem. If any generated code is not reasonably human editable, and also not reasonably LLM editable - but if it would need to be regenerated from scratch - then the LLM and the prompts - maybe even the entire chat session - become part of the mandatory source code disclosure.

This point is reached once a developer e.g. retains their chat session so they have more context next time they want to make changes. We may already have reached it in some cases. As the GPL says not files necessary to make changes, but preferred form for making modifications...

That will get interesting...

[art3mis@todon.eu]

@meanmicio How much can it be considered free/libre when it depends on so much on corporations like alphabet and IBM, which use it to support Israel's oppression and ecocide, and which have been inextricably linked to the United States' imperial policy.

Don't get me wrong i'm not a fan of AI (esp how its being built and used now) and I support foss, but I don't understand moralizing code. Ethics and freedom don't exist at single points in our society they are abstract notions structured by matrices of power and I don't see the use in reducing to such a simple line. I wish everyone would produce more slop (hyperbole) and spend the time they save engaged in grassroots organizing in their communities.

[meanmicio@todon.eu]

@art3mis You bring a very good point, since Big Tech means imperialism, opression and ecocide. LLM is just one of their tools. And you are also right about the "open source" (not Free Software) has been complicit to a degree. I also think that there are projects that use technology for the betterment of society and open science, and they are part of the solution, and we should support them.