37 ms·

The term "Open Source" when applied to these applications is at best confusing and at worst misleading. While the license of the project may be FLOSS, if all a

The term "Open Source" when applied to these applications is at best confusing and at worst misleading. While the license of the project may be FLOSS, if all an application is doing is grabbing locally generated input, sending it off to a proprietary third party black box, and then processing the output, the application is primarily glue and the hard work is being done by the proprietary API. Thus the application adheres to the license of Free/Open Source Software, but not the spirit or motivation, which in this case is primarily independence from third party access to our private data. By way of analogy, it would be like advertising an electric car that requires a diesel fuel generator inside to charge the battery. Yes, the car may be electric, but is entirely dependent on a machine that only works via fossil fuels. I've seen a good half dozen "Open Source" applications which work this way and each time it's a bit of a let down.

Falimonda 3y ago
Where were the claims that this included "hard work", or any requirement that "hard work" be involved? "if all an application is doing is grabbing locally generated input" demonstrates how little time you took to look over the repo, but feel free to be as offensive as you'd like. The application was built to be extensible, support local LLMs in the near future - when they're anywhere near as good as the black boxes that are readily available. It's a matter of practicality and it's apparently something lost on many.
- lolinder 3y ago
  There's a lot of interest in building fully local chat applications, and the people interested in those (myself included) are disproportionately likely to click on a submission advertising itself as an open source assistant. You're not wrong in your definition, but neither are we—there's a reason why F-Droid provides warning banners on apps that rely on proprietary APIs. A large portion of the free software movement would rather use an inferior free solution than one that is better but proprietary. That said, don't take the criticisms too much to heart—I think it's great that people are building things at all points on the free software spectrum.
- emacsen 3y ago
  By hard work, I mean the core computational functionality is being done not only by a black box, but by a black box that is openly hostile to private user generated information- something that a home assistant encourages through knowing what a user's preferences are for music, schedule, and so on. This is a common term of art. As for the issue of weather it's "lost on many", I can't speak for others, but I use proprietary LLMs for certain jobs- but I also understand the risk that I place on myself and others when I do so. On the other side, Voxos.ai's documentation's first section is entitled "Voxos [Beta Release] - Voice Your Desires"- voicing my desires would be to give them to a third party. It's a bad idea. And instead of simply acknowledging the issues and saying "Yes, we have plans for local LLMs" or "We're looking at a mix of rule based and LLM based systems in the future" or even saying nothing, your response is a mix of ridicule and derision. It's very telling.

Falimonda 3y ago

Where were the claims that this included "hard work", or any requirement that "hard work" be involved? "if all an application is doing is grabbing locally generated input" demonstrates how little time you took to look over the repo, but feel free to be as offensive as you'd like. The application was built to be extensible, support local LLMs in the near future - when they're anywhere near as good as the black boxes that are readily available. It's a matter of practicality and it's apparently something lost on many.

lolinder 3y ago
There's a lot of interest in building fully local chat applications, and the people interested in those (myself included) are disproportionately likely to click on a submission advertising itself as an open source assistant. You're not wrong in your definition, but neither are we—there's a reason why F-Droid provides warning banners on apps that rely on proprietary APIs. A large portion of the free software movement would rather use an inferior free solution than one that is better but proprietary. That said, don't take the criticisms too much to heart—I think it's great that people are building things at all points on the free software spectrum.
emacsen 3y ago
By hard work, I mean the core computational functionality is being done not only by a black box, but by a black box that is openly hostile to private user generated information- something that a home assistant encourages through knowing what a user's preferences are for music, schedule, and so on. This is a common term of art. As for the issue of weather it's "lost on many", I can't speak for others, but I use proprietary LLMs for certain jobs- but I also understand the risk that I place on myself and others when I do so. On the other side, Voxos.ai's documentation's first section is entitled "Voxos [Beta Release] - Voice Your Desires"- voicing my desires would be to give them to a third party. It's a bad idea. And instead of simply acknowledging the issues and saying "Yes, we have plans for local LLMs" or "We're looking at a mix of rule based and LLM based systems in the future" or even saying nothing, your response is a mix of ridicule and derision. It's very telling.