Mastodawn

Ludovic Courtès Mar 13

It’s already tempting notably for smallish projects to resort to genAI:
https://toot.aquilenet.fr/@civodul/116132543248503962

But I think a race to the bottom has started in #FreeSoftware, with this rationale: if “we” don’t use genAI in our project, then we will lose to the competition, whether free slopware or proprietary.

Ludovic Courtès (@[email protected])

I think these two factors—lack of humanpower and a “big” vision—coupled with the passion for technicalities typical of such projects make them particularly vulnerable to genAI. Because yes, “we” want SMP support in Mach and it’s not been happening until this contributor achieved something with the help of genAI.

Aquilepouet

Ludovic Courtès Mar 13

… which is short-sighted and loses track of the whole user empowerment goal that free software is supposedly about.

But the “economic” incentives are here.

Simon Tournier Mar 13

@civodul IMHO, the adoption by fellow hackers who have resisted years after years against non-free but “economic” incentives doesn’t come from an “economical” pressure and instead comes from the “efficiency” pressure.

Not because it’d be a competition that “we” could loose, but because we prefer ((on average) the immediate “easiness“ of something done. The “worse is better” always wins.

That’s why I think all is already doomed.

Time for farming tutorial 101. 🤪

Simon Tournier Mar 13

@civodul If you haven’t scrolled these logs yet, I would recommend you to give a look.

Because they show that ChatGPT is here used to tackle tasks and thus user is acquiring new skills. Somehow it’s user empowerment. 😉

And it’s not so different from the usual loop on trial-and-error one might runs. The difference between manuals, search engines, or LLMs is the kind of mirror one is using for self-reflecting. I agree the nature of such mirror is fully different and the implications are thus radically different.

But, when the criteria is about an individual “efficiency”, then the user empowerment looks the same.

https://chatgpt.com/share/698449a8-80ac-8011-8f3c-16f4b6b2c709
https://chatgpt.com/share/69844da8-58bc-8011-84d3-cfecf7ae2215
https://chatgpt.com/share/69844b1c-0a10-8011-8308-333ed22e3ed2
https://chatgpt.com/share/69844e45-8a0c-8011-8a11-5b5d45cd8547

ChatGPT - Debugging gzip Exec Error

Shared via ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Ludovic Courtès Mar 13

@zimoun These transcripts look like a conversation one can choose to have with human beings—on IRC, mailing lists, Zulip, StackOverflow—in a spirit of mutual aid.

They illustrate how these commercial chatbots are already destroying the social fabric was built around free software over decades.

Simon Tournier Mar 13

@civodul About destroying the social, yes! As all the other technologies, no? Any technology often destroys some good and introduces some bad, for sure then it transforms the social into something unpredictable, maybe a better, maybe a worse.

Personal washing machines destroyed all the life (mutual aid?) around the washing house.

The history follows the same slope as the 70+ past years. This slope that values more the “efficiency” than everything else.

@civodul Don’t take me wrong, as you, for me all these LLMs are a strong pity! The balance is just bad and I personally don’t see any good.

It hurts us – as least it hurts me, hardly! – because we were feeling safe in a protected land. And then bang! this beloved land is invaded by the “Technical System”.

The engine of this “Technical System” is indeed the “efficiency”.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Syst%C3%A8me_technicien

Le Système technicien — Wikipédia

Simon Tournier Mar 13

@civodul We like it or not: LLMs is just yet another search for “efficiency” – worse because here such “efficiency” is rationally inefficient! – and users of LLM find more “efficient” to loop over it than depend on someone.

The story is already doomed, IMHO, by the very existence of LLM.

As the story of personal washing machines was already doomed when the first people had only running water at home.

To me, the story of LLMs will be over once we’ll collectively refuse to pay the costs of its resource. Sadly not in the near future when all the governments invest a lot of money… Another story.

Ludovic Courtès Mar 13

@zimoun Defeatism and “we knew since Ellul in the 70s” is harmful for those of us who live here and now.

Hopefully this story can fuel a broader discussion of “technology” and its social impact. But first we need to resist the immediate threat.

Simon Tournier Mar 13

@civodul This is not “defeatism” but the choose of fights.

I think that whatever we do at the level of our small project about LLM is like an invisible pink spoon in front of an ocean to empty.

And for sure, it’s not because we cannot do anything that we cannot do nothing.

So if we believe so hard in the human-being and that Free Software is about connecting people, we must act collectively!

My point is that the fight is for instance here https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/agenda/plenary-news/2026-03-09/9/protecting-copyrighted-creative-work-in-the-age-of-ai and put all the Free Software projects and their collective pressure we are able to in this kind of direction.

Protecting copyrighted creative work in the age of AI | 09-03-2026 | News | European Parliament

On Tuesday, MEPs are expected to call for measures to protect the EU’s creative sector against exploitation by artificial intelligence.

Ludovic Courtès Mar 13

@zimoun I agree that regulation fora are a key place to make things change.

But I also think that our small projects and our small movement can help shift the Overton window in this domain, provided they display a clear stance.

Simon Tournier Mar 13

@civodul After the defeatist, you'll tell about me that I'm the pessimist. 😁 Or the both. 😉

Bah I could provide a long list of projects that made strong stances about this or that. And nothing's changed.

Well, I'm very doutful that the window will change a pixel of its iota because of some of our per-project stances. Maybe a couple of microscopic traces on the glass?

For sure, it's not because a small project stance has no impact that we must not make it.

Yes, we must be ethically right for our grandchildren. 😀

For me, the story is already doomed at the scale of one project. That's why it hurts me so much.

Powerless in front of the killer clowns from outer space.

It's not a resignation but the lucidity of a (indeed necessary but) useless stance and the recognition that such stance is a desperate cry in the void.

Remember: the true pessimist knows it's already too late to be pessimist. 😉

That's why for me, something on this kind of ''Overton window'' would be a collective stance gathering hundreds (thousands?) of Free Software and Open Source projects, distros, etc. Maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_Klowns_from_Outer_Space

Killer Klowns from Outer Space - Wikipedia

Giacomo Tesio Mar 14

@[email protected]

A war is won only when the last enemy believes there's no reason to fight.

We can fight on legal fora but we should be aware that the power dynamic are heavily against us, given we lost the second world war and were colonized by the USA ally^W invader.

But we have tons of contents and codebase to weaponize, data poisoning these tools with subtle vulnerabilities and non-sense.

And by taking strong and technically motivated stances against #LLM and #AI, we could fasten the bubble burst.

And I'm sure we can think more ways to fight back if we accept this is a war between few powerful companies and everybody else.

A war that our adversaries are fighting with all their resources and respecting no rule: why should we use "fair play"?

Don't forget these companies are vampire that suck immense amounts of money and elettricity, so the are basically giants with feet clay.

@[email protected]

Simon Tournier Mar 16

@giacomo I strongly disagree to frame the issue at hand about LLMs & co. as “war”. It’s disrespectful for the people who are living themselves the war: bombs, guns, the fear that liquefies the innards, the concrete death that shots you here and right now. The words have a meaning!

Well, if you still want to slip onto some “just war theory”, you need to precisely answer who is the “competent authority”, what is the “probability of success“, is it the “last resort”. And you also need to precisely clarify who are the combatants and the non-combatants, what are the “legitimate military objective”. Last, you need to precisely define what is the justice after the war, how do we restore the peace.

Otherwise it’s not some “just war” but yet another attempt for dominating by some violence. Sadly, we have too many examples in the world.

The end does not justify all the means, IMHO.

I strongly oppose to be embarked in this vicious circle.

Giacomo Tesio Mar 16

@[email protected]

First, no war is just.

It's always an attempt to dominate the enemy through violence.

And if you get attacked, you can only fight back or surrender. There is no alternative.
And in both cases, any "just war theory" is just a way to legitimize the aggressor.

On the other hand, fighting back is always legitimate as long as you are victim of an aggression. It might be pointless, if you die, but it's always legitimate.

Now the war we are fighting against #BigTech is exactly the same war that the #USA are fighting in #Iran, in #Gaza and even in #Ucraine.

It's a war for resource control and geopolitical power.

Yes, the USA's elites are more brutal there (#Trump even jokes about the people they kill "for fun") but people die of hunger and perfectly curable diseases here, in the third world and in the USA too, sacrified to the woreship of US capitalism.

So it is a war.

But it's not a #ColdWar like the aftermath of WWII.

It's a war between the world richest and everybody else. They kill with different weapons according to the terrain, be it the #CIE guns or whe drones in Iran. They do psyops wherever they are technically able to.

Once you realize you are under attack, once you realize who is attacking you, you face a choice: fight back or surrender.

Pretending it's not a war means surrending.

Is it "just" to fight back?

No.

Is it "just" to surrender?

No.

Still you have to pick an option.

Do you see any alternative?

@[email protected]

Simon Tournier Mar 16

@giacomo I only agree with the two first lines: “no war is just” and “it’s always an attempt to dominated the enemy through violence”.

Then I disagree with all of what you write. And there is nothing to discuss, I guess.

Framing LLM as “it is a war” is factually incorrect, IMHO. At best, one could consider it as a vague guerilla but comfortably installed in our protected cosy couch.

IMHO, there is a difference between soft power and war, no?

Whatever.

Good luck for “your war”. I wish you all the best and I hope you’ll not die because one of the BigTech attacks.

Giacomo Tesio Mar 16

@[email protected]

Fine, your call.

But think about this: the exact same companies and software that #USA "soft power" (aka #imperialism) impose us are being used to coduct a genocide in Gaza and to pick target in #Iran right now.

The exact same companies.
The exact same servers and software.

They are literally war weapons.

And you know what is even more confy than fighting back with our tools from our "protected cozy couch"?

Pretending they are not weapons and doing nothing of what you can do.

It's either surrending... or waiting to jump on the winner bandwagon.

Simon Tournier Mar 16

@giacomo My mountain boots are the same as the ones of the French army, does it make me a soldier? Am I accountable of military actions by the soldiers wearing the same mountain boots as me? The exact same mountain boots, the exact same model.

Somehow, having a knife in my kitchen – the very same knife as the one used as a weapon for killing people on military theaters – having such exact same knife/weapon does it make the people cooking in my kitchen some soldiers of a war?

For the good, the bad and the ugly, life is more subtle than that, no?

Framing all the concerns against LLMs & co. as “it is a war” is a slippery slope, i.e., the same poor rhetorical discourse calling to be violent – many aggressors in a war say very loud “I’ve been attacked, I’m victim of an aggression, so I must fight back”.

It’s specifically because it’s not a “war“ but a soft power using hazy and deep ramifications that, framing all the concerns against LLMs & co. as “it is a war”, then it leads to some detrimental vicious circles.

And I strongly oppose to be embarked in such vicious circle.

Somehow, it seems we agree to strongly disagree.

Giacomo Tesio Mar 16

@[email protected]
Am I accountable of military actions by the soldiers wearing the same mountain boots as me?
If you rent your boots "as a Service", your money fund their military actions.

But I guess that if you are ready to conflate software systems with boots and knives, there's nothing I can say to change your mind.
soft power
It's soft only until you follow their orders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_installations#Foreign_bases_and_facilities
war is a slippery slope
I'm fully aware of this.

And it hurts. And it scare me.

And sure, it's dangerous too.

But they are literally framing it as a war, a class war, to be precise, by bilionaries against democracies and all other people. The hype around AI is just their newest weapon.

We need to urgently acknowedge this and fight back.

List of American military installations - Wikipedia

Simon Tournier Mar 16

@giacomo If you live in one country part of NATO, then you pay taxes that fund “their” military actions.

Say “war is a slippery slope”, yes. War is even the down part of the slope. However, quoting me reads: « Framing all the concerns against LLMs & co. as “it is a war” is a slippery slope ».

I’m not trying to hide using some rhetorical tricks. Sorry if my examples were poor to express the flaw I’m seeing with your arguments. Anyway. Let me try again using 4 bullets:

• For sure, we must be aware that billionaires as Peter Thiel among others are advocating for war(s), are ruining the democracy, and are pushing to the worst, and yes they are trying to frame all that crap as a “war”. But all their bullshit does not make a “war” when speaking about the concerns against LLMs & co.. At least, yet.

• Today the concerns against LLMs & co. cannot be framed as a war. Today, they are about soft power, IMHO.

• As I said, I refuse to enter the vicious circle. Yes, ill-intentioned people are pushing hard, framing their worldview as a “war”, and worse they strongly hope such war pops up in very concrete terms, they are creating the conditions to make it happen. Well, I still refuse this slippery slope and so I refuse to please them. I’m not going to name “war” something that is not one yet, I don’t play the game they are waiting for. It would be too easy for them.

• My objection isn’t about a call to organize, i.e., find one mean or another for protecting our beloved home – the root of the thread. My strong objection is that you framed it as a “war” when it’s not factually one. The words have a meaning; if in the near future we start a war, then how do you name it when you already named “war” something that wasn’t a war yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/peter-thiel-lectures-antichrist

Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist

The political svengali and investor has been giving lectures on ‘an evil king or tyrant … who appears in the end times’

The Guardian

Alexandre Oliva Mar 14

"Whatever you do may seem insignificant to you, but it is most important that you do it." -- Mohandas Gandhi

consider this: https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/2026-03-08-sloppyleft.en.html

CC: @[email protected]

sloppyleft

Simon Tournier Mar 13

@civodul I'm not saying "we knew it since 70s" or even earlier (luddite, etc.), or that ''Ellul told us''. 🤔 I could with a beer 🍻 at hand, here I'm not. 😁

Instead, I'm saying that the dynamics of power isn't at the scale of filtering user's contributions project per project.

Somehow, Free Software had not been at the very first about local arrangements but it had been a radical switch by reversing structural regulations. Such is transversal.

''Here and now'' appears to me a similar situation. Either we are able to collectively produce such structural regulation change, either we are trying to please ourselves for being able to tell to our grandchildren ''sorry we failed but hey we did that''.

So I prefer saying ''too ambitious'' than ''defeatist''. 😉

Joost van Baal-Ilić Mar 13

@zimoun @civodul TIL: "Ellul identified the State and political power as the Beast in the Book of Revelation."
via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul . I always knew it! :)

Jacques Ellul - Wikipedia