You’re still establishing utility as “chief among equals.” I have already responded to this premise.

What? That you won't eat a croissant made with forced child labor? You didn't provide any reasoning why utility isn't the objective primary characteristic.

The total value of something is the weighted sum of its individual value axis’ and those weights are derived from context.

Do you lack reading comprehension, because I repeat for the third time, you're defining a subjective value, and i have no problem with that definition. I gave it in my previous response. Let me quote myself, since apparently you didn't bother enough:

[...] there’s the order of importance of factors, which is, of course, subjective and highly-cotextual.

You can take average, weighted sum, product, whatever the fuck you'd like, the scalar you'd receive would still express the same characteristic, it being the subjective value of a given thing. Subjective and objective realities are two different things. You can't say characteristic is objective if it involves the context of your personal limited perception and personal taste, developed through your individual, unique set of experiences.

I gave you the ad-absurdum example about water, and you still didn't get it. Without something fulfilling the purpose of quenching the thirst there's no use in how nice and well-done everything is. It's the same with non-life-defining matters. Except even the line between what's vital and non-vital itself is also individual.

The opposite of vital would be something like the fact that Linux doesn't run games like Fortnite or Call of Duty, due to their invasive anti-cheats. Guess what, players of those games still won't switch to Linux, precisely because it can't fulfill its purpose for them, i.e. run the fucking game.

Regarding the claim that there is no such thing as a “non-utility-feature”; yes there is. [...] If you mean “utility” in the broadest sense of “does thing” than this conversation is pointless.

I don't mean it in any of the fancy corporate senses, i mean it in the most direct and literal way possible. When I say that everything has its utility, I mean that, for example, even such a "non-utilitarian", purely cosmetic feature as a visually pleasing UI design has utility of a) making a given piece of software more noticeable, as it will stand out from software with worse design b) makes overall end-user experience more enjoyable c) makes the software itself look more polished and presentable. Another example, no-AI policy has a promotional utility, widening the potential audience without risking anything (it's not even legally binding in its most common form, and when it is, the software, legally speaking, stops being OSS, traveling into Source Available category).

That definition provides no distinction between “this accomplishes tasks that I want accomplished” and “this is built in such a way as I would want it built”.

In the particular case of LKMS or software in general? Yes. This isn't applicable towards a software that you have no information about how it was built tho. I don't see any problem with that tho. It just reclassifies your personal preference into a yet another task a given software should accomplish. By your definition of utility, LKML's product does everything you'd ever want/need. By mine it doesn't. By your logic anything that allows you to do basic math operations on numbers is a calculator, and whether someone uses a sheet of paper, an abacus, an actual physical calculator, an app on a phone, or an app on a pc, is just a matter of personal preference and taste. After all, they all accomplish the same purpose, the only difference is how they do it. My optics say, that the majority will prefer a phone app, because everyone nowadays has a phone with them at all times, but i personally right now would use a pc app, because i'm at my pc already, so that way i won't need to take out my phone. My favorite way to sum up a bunch of numbers didn't change because the context shifted tho.

It's all the same with the operating systems. My favorite? Absolutely Linux. Do I dislike Windows and Mac OS? Absolutely. Would I still use Windows on my job if I had no choice? Surprisingly, despite my personal preference, yes, absolutely. Because the utility of the money the job pays outweighs the disutility of Windows being a piece of crap. The scales will most probably tip eventually this hypothetical tho, because the more money I have, the less utility each dollar has for me.

You are right to say that I find the use of LLMs distasteful even under ideal circumstances. [...]

In other words, you're extremely biased, to the point of calling an LLM-produced code "tainted", despite (or rather thanks to) the fact there's no traceable evidence by which you can distinct each individual line of code as LLM/non-LLM-written.

I can understand why, given all the over-hyping combined with layoffs and lots of other unethical decisions. But honestly, to me its like blaming the knife and not the killer. Even without LLMs, the human greed is still ever-present and all-consuming. This is the thing that deserves all of the witch-hunting.

P.S. Sorry for the tone at the start. I was a bit frustrated, but cooled down along the way of writing this. I'm leaving it the way it is tho. It has its own utility:)