@joachim
I need to disagree on this. What I do agree with is that there are far too many technologies, not just LLMs, that are threatening, and we as human beings urgently need to deal with the issues.

But making people assume that Drupal banning the use of LLMs would solve any of these issues isn't really responsible.

@joachim
If we applied that threshold, we would have to do the same to cars, meet, big tech, banking, religions, and so many more threatening and/or unethical products, services, or businesses.

The result would be nothing else than back to the island, and nothing noticeable would happen or change.

I find that unrealistic and pessimistic. Instead, let's be better than those rather then banning or ignoring them. E.g. learn from today's LLMs and push their open source alternatives.

@jurgenhaas @joachim

> "we would have to do the same to cars, meet, big tech, banking, religions, and so many more threatening and/or unethical products, services, or businesses"

You make that sound like a bad thing.

So if we can't stop all evil at once we shouldn't try to stop any? Sorry, but that's textbook whataboutism.

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

@jpoesen
@joachim
I would agree if my proposal were to do nothing about it. However, I not only share the anger and the concerns about the emerging technologies, I also advocate for doing whatever we can to eliminate them.

It matters to me, though, that we chose carefully which counter measures to take. And when it comes to LLMs or big tech, calling for a ban will achieve nothing other than us finding ourselves on an island and nobody cares.

Building alternatives will have an impact.

@jurgenhaas @joachim
I believe that the tech we call AI / LLM / GenAI:

1) is built on stolen content & hidden exploitative labour

2) is fundamentally flawed tech

3) has far ranging detrimental impact on societal cohesion & the environment

As such, this tech is *poison*. I consider *any* software that uses it to be fruit of the poisonous tree, similar to the "virality" of licenses like the GPL.

No amount of sourcewashing can change this. The number of babies I'm willing to grind is zero.

@jpoesen @jurgenhaas @joachim So much going on here, but I have to take issue w/ comparing the intentionally infectious design of GPL to the fruit of LLM/GenAI.

I understand the argument that SFC has been making since its https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/ campaign and the impact accepting that if LLMs just interate enough derivatives, the GPL no longer applies will have on the FOSS ecosystem, but I reject the idea that AI cannot be used responsibly within FOSS projects w/o infecting everything.

@kreynen @jurgenhaas @joachim
Valid points.

Correct, dynamic sites use more resources than static ones; many dynamic ones could/should be static ones. My own site is a local Drupal 11 + Boost that generates & deploys a static site. Not sure how this is pertinent to AI resource usage.

It's probable that the market will reward increased AI resource efficiency. Until that time, the current ginormous usage shouldn't be brushed off with technosolutionist "it'll change for the better some day"

@jpoesen @jurgenhaas @joachim

Just trying to establish some level of agreement as a starting point. If we all agree that historically contributing to CMS projects has displaced workers (RIP Dreamweaver using Webmaster) & caused more environmental harm than alternatives, then we're starting from a place where we've all been "grinding a few babies" over the years & some of us are rejecting "grinding the number of babies" required in this evolution... not that "grinding 1 baby" is unacceptable