this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
197 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
77790 readers
2761 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don’t follow how LLMs destroy open source. For example, a LLM trained on the Linux kernel could probably be used to produce a closed source kernel with a lot of human effort. Big tech companies already make a lot of money from Linux without ever contributing back. That doesn’t change the fact that we can all run Linux and not be trapped using proprietary garbage like Windows. Community contributions still help create a rising tide that raises all boats, and shitty big tech companies having their own massive yachts raised as well doesn’t really change that fact.
I hate big tech companies and the AI grift as much as anyone else here, but don’t really follow the article’s point.
Not sure why I’m getting so many downvotes in this thread, aside from the fact that it may sound like I’m standing up for big tech, which I’m not. This article is more or less saying that open source is doomed as a result of big tech’s LLMs, and I’m saying it’s AI that is ultimately doomed and open source will be just fine. AI isn’t going to make it any easier to replicate the open source projects used to train it, well, for the same reason is doomed to fail: AI is based on exaggerated claims. No, companies aren’t going to use AI to make their own Linux kernel not bound by GPL licensing terms. What’s going to happen is the commercial AI bubble is going to pop, perhaps leaving behind open source AI models that will be used for the modest value they bring for certain tasks.
Essentially almost all FOSS software is under an OSS license of some sort, which allows anyone to re-use their code or software as long as what re-uses it also remains free and open source or at least having at least as open/permissive of a license policy as the original work/code.
LLMs ignore that, hide it behind a subscription, and use it to train their models for selling to soulless corporate entities who will never ever allow their code to be in the FOSS world, thus, breaking the contract.
It's not even an implicit contract, it's explicit, and LLM companies are ignoring this and using their investment to squash any FOSS projects that want to challenge them in court on it.
Given that LLMs increase productivity in the aggregate by 15-20%, and sticking with Linux as an example, a LLM trained on the Linux kernel could be used to make a similar kernel with a ton of human effort. That company could then make a proprietary OS and sell it. Other companies then have the choice of using open source Linux, devoting a ton of their own resources to making a proprietary OS with a little help from AI, or licensing the other company’s proprietary OS. Everyone else can still use Linux and not care.
It’s possible I’m using the wrong example or overlooking something that would help me better understand this perspective.
There is absolutely no way you're using an LLM to rewrite the Linux kernel in any way. That's not what they do, and whatever it produces wouldn't be even a fraction of effective as the current kernel.
They're text prediction machines. That's it. Markov generators on steroids.
I'd also be curious about where that 15-20% productivity increase comes from in aggregate. That's an extremely misleading statistic. The truth is there are no consensus data on any productivity improvements with LLMs today in aggregate. Anything anyone has is made up. It's also not taking into account the additional bugs and issues caused by LLMs, which are significant, and also not a thing you want to have happening on every PR with kernel code, I promise.
Regardless of all of that, the companies with these LLMs are using free software to train their models to make money without making their models free and open source or providing a way for people to use it for free/open source projects, so this is a clear violation of every single FOSS license model I'm familiar with (most commonly used is the Apache one).
TL;DR; they are stealing code meant to be free and public with any derivative works, profiting off it, and then refusing to honor the license model of the code/project they stole.
This is illegal. The only reason why we're not seeing a lot about it is these FOSS generally have no money and are not going to sue them and potentially lose a substantial sum of their negligible funds in court. That's it. Otherwise, what they are doing is very illegal. The sort of thing any professional software development company you work for's legal team warns you about the second you start using an OSS project in your for profit business application codebase.
LLMs get away with it because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's it.
Edit: added link to security article with LLMs
This is from a Stanford study that is summarized here:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/does-ai-actually-boost-developer-productivity-striking-%C3%A7elebi-tcp8f
There are other studies with different conclusions, but this one aligns with my own experience. To your point about how AI won’t reproduce the Linux kernel, this study also points out that AI is significantly less effective, even going into the negative, with complex codebases, which is in agreement with what you said, since the Linux kernel certainly qualifies as a complex codebase.
I agree big tech is using open source unethically, but how much different is this situation from the other ways big tech profits from open source without contributing back? Training proprietary LLMs on open source code is shitty, rent-seeking behavior, but not really a unique development, and certainly not something that undermines the core value of open source.
Destroying "share alike" doesn't undermine the core value of open source? What IS the core value?
The LLMs are not distributing the GPL code, their weights are being trained on it. You can’t just have Copilot pump out something that works like the Linux kerne or Blender, except with different code that isn’t subject to the GPL license. At best, the AI can learn from it and assist humans with developing a proprietary alternative. In that case, it’s not really that much better than having humans study a GPL codebase and make a proprietary alternative without AI. It’s still going to cost a lot of money to replicate the thing no matter what, so why not just save money and use the GPL code and contribute back? Also, it’s going to be hard to sell your proprietary alternative, because why wouldn’t people just use the FOSS version?
You can't "train" on code you haven't copied. That is kind of obvious, right? So did they have the right to copy and then reproduce the work without attribution?
Yeah, I guess this is a bit of gray area. With GPL, you only have rights to code if it was distributed to you. In the case of GPL code that has only been distributed to select people and none of those people distributed it to the general public, but GitHub still trained their models on the private repo, then that would technically be in violation of the license. This would be a more niche scenario, though, since the intent normally is public distribution.
As i understand, Linux is under a license (GPL) which explicitly prevents closing the reuse of its code. So it's all about legal interpretation of "reuse" and so far the GPL stands up against abuses. I suppose that a company specifically targeting the source code for the intend of creating another OS might need to hire more lawyers than developers with far from certain results. But who knows, in a world where billions $ are free as soon as "AI" is mentioned in a business plan.