5 ms·

This is why open source software and non-walled garden systems are so vital. With open source software and hardware where you can install your own software, all

This is why open source software and non-walled garden systems are so vital. With open source software and hardware where you can install your own software, all it takes is one developer somewhere in Russia or China who is not afraid of the RIAA's intimidation, and all of us will have access to the recording in a way that cannot be taken away. We must defend open source software and fight against walled garden promoters (like Apple) to secure our right to general purpose, freedom-respecting computing.

deafpolygon 4y ago
Settle down, Richard. You really think Open Source is going to solve the problem? I love the FOSS as much as the next man, but it's not some holy panacea for all of our freedom-loving woes. RIAA doesn't have to sue the developer in Russia, they can just take the legal fight to the consumers (and they HAVE done so).
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  How would they tell? RIAA has no right to check your computers. I doubt it would be possible to outright ban the software from existing or being installed since it has totally legal uses too.
- sillysaurusx 4y ago
  I think open source is more important and relevant than ever, especially in an era when LLMs are controlled by a select few. But we can both say “Nu uh” and “yes huh” at each other and it won’t really advance the discussion. Do you have specific examples?
  - deafpolygon 4y ago
    Every time the doomsday of AI is heralded by some folks here , they go "but-but, Open Source is the solution!" No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you're so concerned.
    - sillysaurusx 4y ago
      I didn’t say anything about the doomsday scenario, nor that open source is a solution.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you’re so concerned. I have a degree in political science, completed about half of law school before deciding I didn’t want to leave technology, have worked in and around government for most of the last 25 year. Transparency—and open source plays a big part in this—in the answer. Regulation can be important to, but if there isn’t transparency in the field (even if not for all models, though that will be important) and particularly for anything adopted for important use in administering policy and pressure from the open source community on proprietary vendors, the dangers of AI are magnified. Yes, I know people tied to the big vendors are selling the idea that opacity and regulatory restrictions are the answer, and I’m telling you read Adam Smith: The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. That’s why you hear that story.
- bharathyes 4y ago
  didnt they try that with youtube-dl ? though they were able to partially take down the repo it was brought back after the legality ot their claim was analyzed.
  - alwayslikethis 4y ago
    That's the perils of using a proprietary service beholden to the law of the US. Ideally you would want redundant services in different jurisdictions to circumvent takedown requests like this. It is crucial to have control of your infrastructure, even if it may be mirrored elsewhere.
nico 4y ago
> This is why open source software and non-walled garden systems are so vital. Are there people organizing to develop, deploy, run and provide “AI on demand” for free to people? Like Wikipedia but for AI. How much money would be needed? How many volunteers? Who wants to build this?
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  Don't we have LLaMA? The quantized version is runnable on top end consumer hardware, which is within reach for many people if a bit expensive. You can also use it on a rental GPU unit from something like vast.ai or another commercial vendor. AI on demand for free is not a viable economic proposition for now, lest you create a way to vouch for legitimate users and purposes, but at that point most people would rather pay a bit. Maybe in a few years it will become economical.
  - zirgs 4y ago
    It's not legal to use LLaMA for commecial purposes. We need an open source alternative. Not something that was leaked.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Are there people organizing to develop, deploy, run and provide “AI on demand” for free to people? Stable Horde, though its p2p rather than centralized nonprofit https://stablehorde.net/ https://stablehorde.net/
  - nico 4y ago
    Even better! Is there a marketing team?
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      Very few open source projects have a marketing team.
    - 4y ago
unyttigfjelltol 4y ago
> somewhere in Russia or China who is not afraid of the RIAA's intimidation I can't be the only one that sees the irony in developed western democracies relying on Russia and China to protect liberty and freedom.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
  - i80and 4y ago
    the enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy: no less, no more.
  - tracker1 4y ago
    Not always... a single issue "friend" isn't generally enough to stay that way and bigger issues can prevail. While I appreciate a lot of the hardware and hard work that comes from China, I think their government makes them adversarial to the point where the US should seriously work on shoring up domestic production and alternative supply chains. China has been working hard to make the US unnecessary for their own. Not many countries can really exist without at least their neighbors, but it's very concerning. Similarly with alignments with Russia going through. Not that I advocate for the military interventions going on right now for the most part... I just think the US govt and industry have become so short sighted to the point that long term harm is inevitable.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Yes, and that's why they're trying to own our computers before they even leave the factory. They want a world where only the programs they approve can be executed. That's literally the only way that copyright can be enforced in the 21st century. In other words, they are the antithesis of everything hackers stand for. Computers are too powerful and subversive for them, they need to control it. Governments have similar aspirations. They want to contol access to cryptography software.
- 0dayz 4y ago
  While I do agree: "keep your hands off my computer", There's a huge difference in wanting to close down a computer and wanting cryptography software banned. Government don't care if you use open or closed source software, in fact it probably welcomes hackable (as in easy to tinker with, more moving parts that they could easily extract data from) open computers more.

deafpolygon 4y ago

Settle down, Richard. You really think Open Source is going to solve the problem? I love the FOSS as much as the next man, but it's not some holy panacea for all of our freedom-loving woes. RIAA doesn't have to sue the developer in Russia, they can just take the legal fight to the consumers (and they HAVE done so).

alwayslikethis 4y ago
How would they tell? RIAA has no right to check your computers. I doubt it would be possible to outright ban the software from existing or being installed since it has totally legal uses too.
sillysaurusx 4y ago
I think open source is more important and relevant than ever, especially in an era when LLMs are controlled by a select few. But we can both say “Nu uh” and “yes huh” at each other and it won’t really advance the discussion. Do you have specific examples?
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  Every time the doomsday of AI is heralded by some folks here , they go "but-but, Open Source is the solution!" No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you're so concerned.
  - sillysaurusx 4y ago
    I didn’t say anything about the doomsday scenario, nor that open source is a solution.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you’re so concerned. I have a degree in political science, completed about half of law school before deciding I didn’t want to leave technology, have worked in and around government for most of the last 25 year. Transparency—and open source plays a big part in this—in the answer. Regulation can be important to, but if there isn’t transparency in the field (even if not for all models, though that will be important) and particularly for anything adopted for important use in administering policy and pressure from the open source community on proprietary vendors, the dangers of AI are magnified. Yes, I know people tied to the big vendors are selling the idea that opacity and regulatory restrictions are the answer, and I’m telling you read Adam Smith: The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. That’s why you hear that story.
bharathyes 4y ago
didnt they try that with youtube-dl ? though they were able to partially take down the repo it was brought back after the legality ot their claim was analyzed.
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  That's the perils of using a proprietary service beholden to the law of the US. Ideally you would want redundant services in different jurisdictions to circumvent takedown requests like this. It is crucial to have control of your infrastructure, even if it may be mirrored elsewhere.

nico 4y ago

> This is why open source software and non-walled garden systems are so vital. Are there people organizing to develop, deploy, run and provide “AI on demand” for free to people? Like Wikipedia but for AI. How much money would be needed? How many volunteers? Who wants to build this?

alwayslikethis 4y ago
Don't we have LLaMA? The quantized version is runnable on top end consumer hardware, which is within reach for many people if a bit expensive. You can also use it on a rental GPU unit from something like vast.ai or another commercial vendor. AI on demand for free is not a viable economic proposition for now, lest you create a way to vouch for legitimate users and purposes, but at that point most people would rather pay a bit. Maybe in a few years it will become economical.
- zirgs 4y ago
  It's not legal to use LLaMA for commecial purposes. We need an open source alternative. Not something that was leaked.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Are there people organizing to develop, deploy, run and provide “AI on demand” for free to people? Stable Horde, though its p2p rather than centralized nonprofit https://stablehorde.net/ https://stablehorde.net/
- nico 4y ago
  Even better! Is there a marketing team?
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    Very few open source projects have a marketing team.
  - 4y ago

unyttigfjelltol 4y ago

> somewhere in Russia or China who is not afraid of the RIAA's intimidation I can't be the only one that sees the irony in developed western democracies relying on Russia and China to protect liberty and freedom.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
micromacrofoot 4y ago
the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
- i80and 4y ago
  the enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy: no less, no more.
- tracker1 4y ago
  Not always... a single issue "friend" isn't generally enough to stay that way and bigger issues can prevail. While I appreciate a lot of the hardware and hard work that comes from China, I think their government makes them adversarial to the point where the US should seriously work on shoring up domestic production and alternative supply chains. China has been working hard to make the US unnecessary for their own. Not many countries can really exist without at least their neighbors, but it's very concerning. Similarly with alignments with Russia going through. Not that I advocate for the military interventions going on right now for the most part... I just think the US govt and industry have become so short sighted to the point that long term harm is inevitable.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Yes, and that's why they're trying to own our computers before they even leave the factory. They want a world where only the programs they approve can be executed. That's literally the only way that copyright can be enforced in the 21st century. In other words, they are the antithesis of everything hackers stand for. Computers are too powerful and subversive for them, they need to control it. Governments have similar aspirations. They want to contol access to cryptography software.

0dayz 4y ago
While I do agree: "keep your hands off my computer", There's a huge difference in wanting to close down a computer and wanting cryptography software banned. Government don't care if you use open or closed source software, in fact it probably welcomes hackable (as in easy to tinker with, more moving parts that they could easily extract data from) open computers more.