I read and see there many, many and more simple said excuses that AI-usage is surely "not something bad". The simple question "Cui bono?" clears up for me speaking: Who is in fact owning the sources for that? Not the sources of the projects, the sources WHO owns the LLM-algorithm. And the answer is there: Not WE own any single line, any single right and any single part of the data. So let's make a difference:
The source-code
The source-code, even from a local model, is not owned by anyone else as from the companies and groups having the copyright, trademarks and patents. How is that really free? How is that in any way accessing and enabling peoples' freedom(s)?
The data
The "data" is enrichted by people willingly? The "data" is handed out freely by people? The answer is foremost: NO. So the "data" for enabling that LLM in usage or SLM in usage is also not really free. Simple but clear.
So please the question: Why should we here again debate that? Why the perspective and for what purpose? I do not understand that. Foremost any point in the listing is either a poor explanation (the one from pixl.us is nearly a joke, https://discuss.pixls.us/t/llm-co-codin … ined/56551) and the one from rsync-maintainer? Well, I call that offending at best. To quote:
for the people saying things like “I’m a PhD from xyz uni and I’m telling your LLMs are just stochastic tools that make everything up and the world will fall apart if you use them”, I’m here to tell you that you are out of date. The world of software engineering has changed dramatically in the last few months. The world of IT security and maintaining software in the face of the flood of reports has completely and utterly changed just in the last few weeks. Anything you learned about this stuff last year might as well be from another planet.
First what has the "entitlement" to do with any kind of expertise? I can have any title and entitlement but also be at the same time: Ignorant and arrogant, provocating and without any empathy or solidarity. So that has nothing to do with anything. Second: To state such and think to outrage shows clearly that there is something else, perhaps some guilty consciene as the PhD surely knows the consequences of own acting. Meanwhile AI and LLM consume that much energy, that much resources eating up whole landscapes. So while people and beings elsewhere suffer, we may use such? Oh, paying money for this also or with our data doing so, resulting again into money with toolsets like ollama or something else pretending to be local used.
All of that is no conspiracy theory. But to insult people likewise to tell "you are out of data" is exactly nothing more than that.
So can you please relate: Why did you post that summaries here? What should this bring up as only more debates eating time we can spend elsewhere right more efficient and helpful? The only point I personal can use this listing out: Aside of NetBSD, Codeberg and SourceHut all other projects are tainted and polluted with AI. Was the the intention, chomwitt?
Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!
Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!
