NetBSD banned submitting "Tainted Code" in their commit guidelines...
https://www.netbsd.org/developers/commit-guidelines.html
May be time to dump Linux, Linus.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
NetBSD banned submitting "Tainted Code" in their commit guidelines...
https://www.netbsd.org/developers/commit-guidelines.html
May be time to dump Linux, Linus.
Seems like an AI apologists article. Sounds a bit like "bans are hard so why even bother."
No, the alternatives exist and people can choose them where able: https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index Sure, not all things are available AI free, e.g. there's no Linux kernel (NetBSD doesn't run on as much hardware), but that doesn't mean there's no point in choosing no AI software where possible, if you care about it.
The enforceability part seems the most apologist to me. You never could really know if some contributor wasn't copying leaked Windows XP code into your FOSS project. If you trust contributors that little, don't let them contribute.
This will also be quite the test for the Lemmy slopwarriors
If the model is adequately FOSS, i.e. open weights, and can run on a single consumer GPU (or NPU), and the "author" (quotations because I'm personally undecided if one can claim code generated by an aforementioned model is theirs) understands it, then I really don't see what the problem is...
Personally I have nothing against SLMs/LLMs as a technology, to me my grievances against ChatGPT or Claude are mostly about their environmental impacts and selling us back our own art, also keeping knowledge behind a for-profit black-box - if those aren't appropriate for a specific model, then I say using that model is fair, and good for productivity.
I'd take a model whose training data is open source and legitimately obtained. The only ones I know about are Apertus and OLMo, and they aren't really competitive.
Unfortunately not yet, no, true FOSS models are likely many years away, but I would argue that that follows typical FOSS lifecycles. Emerging technology is typically outperformed by proprietary endeavors, which creates an audience, and then that audience undertakes a FOSS implementation that initially underperforms, then just about competes, then eventually overtakes (i.e, GNU/Linux).
Antoine’s argument is still very naive and short sighted.
Only because some corporations are linked to fascism, does not make the technology inherently fascist.
If these links are an issue, we should also all stop using Microsoft and Google, because they offer Isreael computing power, and thus every service is now supporting genocide. So if you are that user, all fine, enjoy an off-grid life. But don’t pretend to be better, if you still rely on those companies in the first place.
Nothing wrong with using llms in useful ways, as long as they keep giving factual and unbiased information. Or you can look up stuff online and verify in a book at the library, although that could be outdated too, hmm. Unfortunately I noticed they do more of the "both sides have good points" (Perry's scheme level 3 of 9), even when it's a lopsided topic. We need impartial ratings somehow to show how biased the various models become and people will stay in the ones they like, or not use them or other ways to learn.
Locked into the low-level, high-control systems, they won't learn how unhealthy they are and how to do better with freedom and equality, like it's always been, just updated with the tech. Ask llms to use Sagan's baloney detection kit and Perry's highest thinking levels to analyze problems, with the main goal of how to help humanity, the environment, etc. that benefits the majority and minimizes damage. Try to make the llm work in favor of humanity rather than the owners' greed.
Develop ego awareness, notice when it reacts with upset to new information, and choose to learn anyway. As you recognize the unhealthy indoctrination you absorbed, use that anger to break free from high-control systems, guided by the truth that sets you free. Then learn to manage the cognitive dissonance and the inner resistance that clings to the old beliefs once you've woken up to the truth. Good luck!
So Debian, what are you going to do now?
Edit: nm, they allow LLM written code now.
Open Source and git mean this is basically a non issue. It's just effort to manage it again.
People can fork a pre... 2020? version if they insist and if it's enough people who want that, they can group up again and form a new community.
The problem AI slop coding is mostly the untested bullshit that causes problems. That's not going to happen because I believe that a good bunch of stuff is thoroughly tested now, and also, this is maintainers doing it. If it doesn't work, it's their project, their career and their success on the line. And again, the worst possible outcome is that people have to roll back to an older version.
The code we use is not art the same way that gen-ai replaces "real artists". I agree with opposing that tech in that area, and I agree with rejecting unchecked, untested, hallucinated nonsense in coding too, especially when it promises new features in corpo software that you are forced to use, and then have that fail on you.
But there will be a very normal selection process happening. If the process doesn't work, the software will fail and lose users.
I fully support the people who absolutely reject it though, that means diversity of approaches and that's good.
What was that random desktop image in the middle of the article for? It's that the author's? What kind of impression did he expect his elf babe wallpaper to convey?
Guess it's finally time to go all in on FreeBSD
We need to finish Hurd.
We
Patches welcome
Yeah, just as soon as i learn to code. Hurd needs users as well you know. We dont need an OS for engineers only.
FreeBSD is also slopped, sadly. https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/will-freebsd-adopt-a-no-ai-policy-or-such.100101/