8 ms·
> That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. it's not the parasites can't train their shitty "AI" if they don't have anything to train it on
by blibble 10mo ago
> That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
it's not
the parasites can't train their shitty "AI" if they don't have anything to train it on
- pdpi 10mo agoYes — That’s the bath water. The baby is the all the communal good that has come from FLOSS.
- afavour 10mo agoOP is asserting that the danger posed by AI is far bigger than the benefit of FLOSS. So to OP AI is the bath water.
- seanclayton 10mo agoYes, and they are okay with throwing the baby out with it, which is what the other commenter is commenting about. Throwing babies out of buckets full of bathwater is a bad thing, is what the idiom implies.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- dvfjsdhgfv 10mo agoIt is. If not you, other people will write their code, maybe of worse quality, and the parasites will train on this. And you cannot forbid other people to write open source software.
- blibble 10mo ago> If not you, other people will write their code, maybe of worse quality, and the parasites will train on this. this is precisely the idea add into that the rise of vibe-coding, and that should help accelerate model collapse everyone that cares about quality of software should immediately stop contributing to open source
- garciasn 10mo agoFree software has always been about standing on the shoulders of giants. I see this as doing so at scale and thus giving up on its inherent value is most definitely throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- blibble 10mo agoI'd rather the internet ceased to exist entirely, than contributing in any way to generative "AI"
- DiscourseFan 10mo agoSuch a reactionary position is no better than nihilism.
- user____name 10mo agoIf God is Dead, do we have to rebuild It in the megacorps of the world whilst maximizing shareholder value?
- DiscourseFan 10mo agoI think you aren't recognizing the power that comes from organizing thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of workers into vast industrial combines that produce the wealth of our society today. We must go through this, not against it. People will not know what could be, if they fail to see what is.
- keeganpoppen 10mo agothis just sounds like some memes smashed together in the LHC. what is this even supposed to mean? AI is a technology that will inevitably developed by humankind. all of this appeal to... populism? socialism?... is completely devoid of meaning in response to a discussion whose sine qua non is pragmatism at the very least.
- Marha01 10mo ago
- ekianjo 10mo agoIf we end up with only proprietary software we are the one who lose
- Juliate 10mo agoGenAI would be decades away (if not more) with only proprietary software (which would never have reached both the quality, coordination and volume open source enabled in such a relatively short time frame).
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- xdavidliu 10mo agoopen source code is a miniscule fraction of the training data
- maplethorpe 10mo agoWhere did most of the code in their training data come from?
- fooqux 10mo agoI'd love to see a citation there. We already know from a few years ago that they were training AI based on projects on GitHub. Meanwhile, I highly doubt software firms were lining up to have their proprietary code bases ingested by AI for training purposes. Even with NDAs, we would have heard something about it.
- xdavidliu 10mo agoI should have clarified what I meant. The training data includes roughly speaking the entire internet. Open source code is probably a large fraction of the code in the data, but it is a tiny fraction of the total data, which is mostly non-code. My point was that the hypothetical of "not contributing to any open source code" to the extent that LLMs had no code to train on, would not have made as big of an impact as that person thought, since a very large majority of the internet is text, not code.
- maplethorpe 10mo agoI'm sorry but your point doesn't make sense to me. Training on all the world's text but omitting code means that your machine won't know how to write code. That's an enormous impact, not a small one. Unless you're in the camp that believes ChatGPT can extrapolate outside of its training data and do computer programming without having ever trained on any computer programming material?
- xdavidliu 10mo agofair point
- simonw 10mo agoYou refusing to write open source will do nothing to slow the development of AI models - there's plenty of other training data in the world. It will however reduce the positive impact your open source contributions have on the world to 0. I don't understand the ethical framework for this decision at all.
- bgwalter 10mo agoGuilt-tripping people into providing more fodder for the machine. That is really something else. I'm not surprised that you don't understand ethics.
- simonw 10mo agoI'm trying to guilt-trip them into using their skills to improve the world through continuing to release open source software. I couldn't care less if their code was used to train AI - in fact I'd rather it wasn't since they don't want it to be used for that.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- hnisforjakases 10mo ago[dead]
- blibble 10mo agogiven the "AI" industry's long term goals, I see contributing in any way to generative "AI" to be deeply unethical, bordering on evil which is the exact opposite of improving the world you can extrapolate to what I think of YOUR actions
- bryan_w 10mo agoYour post, full of well formed, English sentences is also going to contribute to generative AI, so thanks for that.
- Kirth 10mo agosurely that cat's out of the bag by now; and it's too late to make an active difference by boycotting the production of more public(ly indexed) code?
- franktankbank 10mo agoKind of kind of not. Form a guild and distribute via SAAS or some other undistributable knowledge. Most code out there is terrible so relying on AI trained on it will lose out.