It's difficult to imagine that Linux Foundation, which has a branch called "Agentic AI foundation", platinum-sponsored by Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, would not be acting in the interests of the said platinum members.
-
It's difficult to imagine that Linux Foundation, which has a branch called "Agentic AI foundation", platinum-sponsored by Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, would not be acting in the interests of the said platinum members.
@nina_kali_nina as a matter of interest, who has rights over the use of the name 'Linux'?
-
@nina_kali_nina as a matter of interest, who has rights over the use of the name 'Linux'?
@simon_brooke as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Mark_Institute, Linus himself
-
For clarity: this isn't an accusation of being unethical, it's a mention of a conflict of interests between the Foundation and the interests of humans (not corporations) the Foundation is supposed to serve as per their own mission ("The Linux Foundation is a neutral, trusted hub for developers and organizations to code, manage, and scale open technology projects and ecosystems.")
Also yikes they have slop images on their main website.
@nina_kali_nina I'm not surprised, this is what happens when something is "neutral". The people with the most money or power will eventually control it.
-
@simon_brooke as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Mark_Institute, Linus himself
@nina_kali_nina That's what I hoped. So maybe @torvalds could have a quiet word with the eponymous foundation?
I do not imagine they would enjoy being told to cease and desist.
-
@nina_kali_nina the latest Linux kernel update, 7.2 (even number) I notice isn’t a “long term support release”.
@peterrenshaw @nina_kali_nina most kernel releases are not LTS
-
@nina_kali_nina That's what I hoped. So maybe @torvalds could have a quiet word with the eponymous foundation?
I do not imagine they would enjoy being told to cease and desist.
@simon_brooke @nina_kali_nina Torvalds is in on all of this. He's a techbro grifter who has sold off whatever morals he had to the aforementioned platinum sponsors.
-
It's difficult to imagine that Linux Foundation, which has a branch called "Agentic AI foundation", platinum-sponsored by Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, would not be acting in the interests of the said platinum members.
@nina_kali_nina I believe that the only way to not be affected by donors is to have 100% anonymous donations. I'm pretty certain that would lead to a 100% drop in donations which would kinda prove my point.
-
It's difficult to imagine that Linux Foundation, which has a branch called "Agentic AI foundation", platinum-sponsored by Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, would not be acting in the interests of the said platinum members.
@nina_kali_nina Oh, tech folks have been denying that Mozilla, which exists due to half a billion dollars from Google a year, would in any way be influenced by such money for years. Those of us that called it out were called conspiracy theorists.
Same shit, different day.
-
For clarity: this isn't an accusation of being unethical, it's a mention of a conflict of interests between the Foundation and the interests of humans (not corporations) the Foundation is supposed to serve as per their own mission ("The Linux Foundation is a neutral, trusted hub for developers and organizations to code, manage, and scale open technology projects and ecosystems.")
Also yikes they have slop images on their main website.
@nina_kali_nina When you start taking money, you stop being neutral. No matter what it says on the wrapping.
-
It's difficult to imagine that Linux Foundation, which has a branch called "Agentic AI foundation", platinum-sponsored by Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, would not be acting in the interests of the said platinum members.
@nina_kali_nina there is no free lunch even open source
no money no incentive -
@nina_kali_nina That's what I hoped. So maybe @torvalds could have a quiet word with the eponymous foundation?
I do not imagine they would enjoy being told to cease and desist.
Outside of (the mostly non-developer) people on Mastodon there's no real discussion on whether LLMs are useful for software developer/cybersec etc or not. We (senior greybeards not influenced by whatever crap cloud AI mongers try to sell) simply use it where it brings benefits.
Torvalds too.
-
For clarity: this isn't an accusation of being unethical, it's a mention of a conflict of interests between the Foundation and the interests of humans (not corporations) the Foundation is supposed to serve as per their own mission ("The Linux Foundation is a neutral, trusted hub for developers and organizations to code, manage, and scale open technology projects and ecosystems.")
Also yikes they have slop images on their main website.
@nina_kali_nina basically all nonprofits are coopted in this way. It's a huge problem in the environmental space, too
If the foundation's mission is at odds with corporate interests, then the corporations will use funding as leverage to dampen their impact.
-
@peterrenshaw @nina_kali_nina most kernel releases are not LTS
@mxey ta, I didn’t know that. @nina_kali_nina
-
Outside of (the mostly non-developer) people on Mastodon there's no real discussion on whether LLMs are useful for software developer/cybersec etc or not. We (senior greybeards not influenced by whatever crap cloud AI mongers try to sell) simply use it where it brings benefits.
Torvalds too.
@troed @simon_brooke This completely ignores the ethical implications of the LLM usage.
-
@stuartl Sorry
-
@nina_kali_nina Oh, tech folks have been denying that Mozilla, which exists due to half a billion dollars from Google a year, would in any way be influenced by such money for years. Those of us that called it out were called conspiracy theorists.
Same shit, different day.
@aral Yeah
-
@troed @simon_brooke This completely ignores the ethical implications of the LLM usage.
@nina_kali_nina Or we simply don't agree with those claims?
Most discussions I've had here with anti-AI fanatics show them to be as knowledgeable on the subject as "I've done my own research" anti vaxxers are about vaccines.
-
For clarity: this isn't an accusation of being unethical, it's a mention of a conflict of interests between the Foundation and the interests of humans (not corporations) the Foundation is supposed to serve as per their own mission ("The Linux Foundation is a neutral, trusted hub for developers and organizations to code, manage, and scale open technology projects and ecosystems.")
Also yikes they have slop images on their main website.
@nina_kali_nina As they like to say in the genAI world, this is an alignment problem — what’s in the interest of large corps is most definitely [edit] **not** in the interest of regular users/people; except by chance or temporary. I think it *is* an ethical issue but I don’t think Linux Foundation board sees it this way (evidently).
-
@simon_brooke @nina_kali_nina Torvalds is in on all of this. He's a techbro grifter who has sold off whatever morals he had to the aforementioned platinum sponsors.
@ariarhythmic @simon_brooke @nina_kali_nina @zzt A 1.5 million salary p.a. will do that to people.
-
Outside of (the mostly non-developer) people on Mastodon there's no real discussion on whether LLMs are useful for software developer/cybersec etc or not. We (senior greybeards not influenced by whatever crap cloud AI mongers try to sell) simply use it where it brings benefits.
Torvalds too.
@troed @simon_brooke @nina_kali_nina
I don't agree with that characterisation at all.
I'm one of many developers who interact with this technology daily and find it wanting. I have to use it if I want to keep my job because management believe the marketing, but I am aghast at the prospect of supporting the stuff we're slopping out over the long term. Based on evaluating and understanding the output.Our work is bullshit anyway but I would never use it for something critical.
