@bekkaboo@girlcock.club Linux itself is heavily using AI models. Therefore, every Linux distribution moving to recent kernel versions is heavily built on top of using AI models. Creating a Linux distribution not heavily using it would require a hard fork of the Linux kernel and many other projects.
It's unclear what would be accomplished by banning AI for a tiny portion of the code while continuing to use Linux, AOSP, Chromium and hundreds of other projects heavily using it. We'd still be benefiting from it.
GrapheneOS is currently defending its use of AI coding tools on Mastodon against complaints by various accounts claiming to be users.
We do not understand where you’re coming from or why you’re so incredibly angry with us. It’s not justified and does not make sense.
a lot of communities are aggressively clamping down on AI contributions. i think leaving the floodgates open really hasnt worked out. People touting “the kernel does it so get over it” gloss over the contributions being small and strict “your ai code reflects you and you own the consequences” policy.
additionally i dont buy the enterprise does it so get on board argument. the floss movement is literally built around pushing back on corporate norms. i dont know why anyone would take thay argument at face value.
for a lot of FLOSS communities, the ethics of the software is as important as the quality. which is why so many Debian community members felt betrayed by milquetoast ai policy adoption.
Graphene made a similar “look they’re all doing it too” argument on Mastadon which I feel just really undermines their image as the alternative.
“we dont police our developers usage as long as the quality meets out high standards. all code is at the end of the day ownedand reviewed by the humans in our teams” or some other equally silly statement would still have had critics but at least they wouldn’t sound like a grade schooler wining about how infair life is.
a lot of communities are aggressively clamping down on AI contributions. i think leaving the floodgates open really hasnt worked out. People touting “the kernel does it so get over it” gloss over the contributions being small and strict “your ai code reflects you and you own the consequences” policy.
additionally i dont buy the enterprise does it so get on board argument. the floss movement is literally built around pushing back on corporate norms. i dont know why anyone would take thay argument at face value.
for a lot of FLOSS communities, the ethics of the software is as important as the quality. which is why so many Debian community members felt betrayed by milquetoast ai policy adoption.
Graphene made a similar “look they’re all doing it too” argument on Mastadon which I feel just really undermines their image as the alternative.
“we dont police our developers usage as long as the quality meets out high standards. all code is at the end of the day ownedand reviewed by the humans in our teams” or some other equally silly statement would still have had critics but at least they wouldn’t sound like a grade schooler wining about how infair life is.