So I accidentally triggered an online shitstorm in the process of trying to craft a set of more restrictive LLM usage guidelines for KDE. Sorry about that. :/ I’m going to leave the comments …

Personal opinion: Nathan seems to be really side-stepping a lot of concerns brought of up in the comments there. And referring to people coming together collectively in an open-letter when virtually all other channels are closed as ‘brigading’ is… Not cool. Edit: he retracted the use of brigading.

  • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
    0·
    14 hours ago

    AI can be implemented ethically. AI can be done without destruction of the environment etc. Who cares if AI replaces people as long as we take care of the people.

    Capitalism/authoritarianism is what destroys the environment and causes war and genocide. AI can never take away your passions or hinder your ability to pass them on.

    If we outlaw generative AI tomorrow, nothing will change. Because the problem will remain untouched. It was never AI. But oligarchs leeching and exploiting society as always.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      0·
      10 hours ago

      AI can be implemented ethically.

      Potentially, yes. Currently this does not exist.

      AI can be done without destruction of the environment

      The AI policy proposed did not restrict AI usage to non-destructive self-hosted models.

      Who cares if AI replaces people as long as we take care of the people.

      The people who are most impacted by the negative externalities of AI are not taken care of. The people losing their jobs are also not taken care of. That is why people care so much. It’s not viable to handwave away the negatives AI are causing in the here and now with the assurance that in some far off day we’ll live in a post-capitalist world where the negatives won’t matter.

      • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
        0·
        10 hours ago

        Currently this does not exist.

        False. There are a number of models trained on data they were explicitly given permission to train on. Are these the models they’re using? Well I know as much as you, which is to say I don’t know. Though I think we’d probably agree they aren’t largely. But aren’t != can’t.

        The AI policy did not restrict AI usage to non-destructive self-hosted models.

        Brody’s videos that I linked go into this rationally and reasonably.

        1. These are unpaid volunteer developers.
        2. With what tools and funds will they police this?
        3. The Black Arts of control C control V are also widely known. Better that the code be attributable and traceable than not.

        There’s no reasonable way they can actually ban this. And they don’t have the time or money to police it. The only real solution is to just shut the projects down at this point. Is that what you’re aiming for?

        The people who are most impacted by the negative externalities of AI are not taken care of. The people losing their jobs are also not taken care of. That is why people care so much. It’s not viable to handwave away the negatives AI are causing in the here and now with the assurance that in some far off day we’ll live in utopia where the negatives won’t matter.

        No one is hand waving away the negative impacts. You are simply misattributing them to artificial intelligence and not wealthy authoritarians seeking to profit. By all means, fuck zuck, musk, altman, etc and their companies. They’ve always been and always will be destructive in every way possible. AI or not.