14 Followers
29 Following
176 Posts

Do you stand for what you believe in, and find the strength to do what's right? That's turtle power.

Ex-professional software engineer, enduring software freedom proponent.

codehttps://lab.burn.capital/chaz

It's clear that AI assisted coding is dividing developers (welcome to the culture wars!). I've seen a few blog posts now that talk about how some people just "love the craft", "delight in making something just right, like knitting", etc, as opposed to people who just "want to make it work". As if that explains the divide.

How about this, some people resent the notion of being a babysitter to a stochastic token machine, hastening their own cognitive decline. Some people resent paying rent to a handful of US companies, all coming directly out of the TESCREAL human extinction cult, to be able to write software. Some people resent the "worse is better" steady decline of software quality over the past two decades, now supercharged. Some people resent that the hegemonic computing ecosystem is entirely shaped by the logic of venture capital. Some people hate that the digital commons is walled off and sold back to us. Oh and I guess some people also don't like the thought of making coding several orders of magnitude more energy intensive during a climate emergency.

But sure, no, it's really because we mourn the loss of our hobby.

Of course, the OSI *can* run their board that way. But "can" and "should" are different things.

I bet I'm not the only one right now wishing the organization most associated with "free software" weren't having similar problems with democratic board control.

Meanwhile, I'm just going to start saying I support software that supports the rights of individuals. I don't care so much what you call it, but I care a lot how you do it.

One thing I really want people to understand: regardless of the reasons for Mozilla introducing that ridiculously broad / privacy hostile terms of service / privacy policy; and regardless of their actual intent.

You should respect yourself, and your fellow humans, enough to not put up with that level of bullshit.

You deserve technology that works for you, technology that isn't built on shifting sands, whose behaviour doesn't radically change between minor updates; software that respects you.

@osi i understand considering stakeholders to include people without a business relationship is very novel for the OSI but maybe that means you shouldn't be the org trying to define these contradictory standards with conflicting goals?

I love this line from @anna:

"So while the concept of software freedom doesn't resonate with me as much and as deeply as the concept of liberation — my ultimate goal is to liberate people, not technology — in the acceleration of a deep integration of technology into every single aspect of our lives, the fight for software freedom still often intersects with the fight for human rights."

https://notapplicable.dev/ode-to-free-software

Ode to free software · Anna e só

Anna e só (/ˈɐ̃.nɐ e ˈsɔ/) is a Brazilian information systems architect building accessible, diverse, and resilient open projects.

You don't have to take my word for it, here's Schneier himself saying this open source AI definition is "terrible":

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/11/ai-industry-is-trying-to-subvert-the-definition-of-open-source-ai.html

AI Industry is Trying to Subvert the Definition of "Open Source AI" - Schneier on Security

The Open Source Initiative has published (news article here) its definition of “open source AI,” and it’s terrible. It allows for secret training data and mechanisms. It allows for development to be done in secret. Since for a neural network, the training data is the source code—it’s how the model gets programmed—the definition makes no sense. And it’s confusing; most “open source” AI models—like LLAMA—are open source in name only. But the OSI seems to have been co-opted by industry players that want both corporate secrecy and the “open source” label. (Here’s one ...

Schneier on Security
God, Android development really is just awful.

They posit you can still modify (tune) the distributed models without the training source. You can also modify a binary executable without its source code. Frankly that's unacceptable if we actually care about the human beings using the software.

A key pillar of freedom as it relates to software is reproducibility. The ability to build a tool from scratch, in your own environment, with your own parameters, is absolutely indispensable to both learning how the tool works and changing the tool to better serve your needs, especially if your needs fall on the outskirts of the bell curve.

There's also the issue of auditability. If you can't run the full build process yourself, producing your own results from scratch in a trusted environment to compare with what's distributed, it becomes exponentially harder to verify any claims about how a tool supposedly works.

Without the training data, this all becomes impossible for AI models. The OSI knows this. They're choosing to ignore it for the sake of expediency for the companies paying their bills, who want to claim "open" because it sounds good while actually hiding the (largely stolen and fraudulently or non-consentually acquired) source material of their current models.

Do we want a new definition of "open source" that actively thwarts analysis and tinkering, two fundamental requirements of software that respects human beings today? Reject this nonsense.

#OpenSource #OpenSourceAI #OSI #OpenSourceInitiative #FreeSoftware #AI #GenAI #GenerativeAI

As the OSI prepares to make official its "open source AI" definition with a glaring lack of requirement that the actual source (training data) is made available, it's worth noting that their work is funded by google, meta, microsoft, salesforce, etc. What does open source even mean here if the literal source of the model isn't open? These companies are invested in making you think they're on your side while they boil the oceans to avoid paying human beings for labor.

The idea behind open source, as it grew out of the free software movement, has always been to water down software freedoms, to create something more palatable to corporate interests that *sounds* good but means very little. This continues that work for the current "gen AI" bubble. It's time to ditch open source as an ideal, and the OSI especially.

https://opensource.org/ai/drafts/the-open-source-ai-definition-1-0-rc2

#OpenSource #OpenSourceAI #OSI #OpenSourceInitiative #FreeSoftware #AI #GenAI #GenerativeAI

Daniel Craig, founder of Craigslist