661
Debian developer Antoine Le Gonidec resigns after option allowing corporate LLM use without disclosure wins vote (lists.debian.org)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
321 comments fedilink hide all child comments
πŸ’― 2
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Not really worth discussing - it’s not benign, and it can be made purposefully not benign by a third party without notification or knowledge. A third party who has already demonstrated a penchant for world domination, both technologically and physically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I should hope that open source developers are exclusively using open source models that are trained on open source projects.

    I mean, I would think, at least. It seems to me that most of the people in charge of big projects are usually FOSS purists.

    That's part of the reason why AI scrapers are breaking the small web. FOSS purists really have no significant defense against it aside from Anubis.

    Real DoS protection comes from capacity, which costs serious dollars, especially in this day and age where botfarms can be hired by the hour for rather cheap and record-breaking attacks seem to happen like monthly.

    The alternative is using a CDN, but there are none that align with FOSS ideals. And for CDNs to be really effective, you need them to break open TLS and handle the decrypted traffic, which raises privacy concerns on top.

    But anyways...most license agreements would make it a requirement that if you're using an open-source model, that it be properly attributed, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    I should hope that open source developers are exclusively using open source models that are trained on open source projects.

    Most developers who use these tools (even FLOSS developers) appear to be using the corporate owned models that were definitely trained on both proprietary source code and code that is incompatible with the GPL license. Some EU courts have also already judged that LLM code cannot be copyrighted, which also means it cannot be licensed as GPL.

    Currently, all code generated with an LLM has a 3 to 10% chance of unknowingly plagiarizing the copyrighted code it was trained on, and any FLOSS project that uses it is making a huge gamble that their codebase won't be scanned by corporations in the future looking for violations to sue about, shut down rival FLOSS projects, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent