If the only affordable option for using computers is cloud-based subscriptions, that’s when computers are no longer worth it to me. I’ll just take up something else.

I have a mini PC for gaming and originally installed Mint, but switched to Bazzite to see if it would fix an issue with my XBox controllers cutting out. It didn’t, and I also didn’t notice any better performance in games. After coming to the conclusion I’d have to rebase to uninstall Steam (I only use Lutris), I decided immutable is cool, but I’ll stick with Mint.

It sucks being put on the spot to donate to a charity I haven’t researched, but I’ve also been a cashier and hated being forced to ask people shit like this.

So are they getting a different award for using AI and ending up with something that isn’t slop?

Pretty bad luck on the timing for Steam Machine. Hope Valve can still pull it off, but not sure they’re going to be able to hit a price point where it’s worth buying.

DNF makes me so sad to this day.

Not sure why I’m getting so many downvotes in this thread, aside from the fact that it may sound like I’m standing up for big tech, which I’m not. This article is more or less saying that open source is doomed as a result of big tech’s LLMs, and I’m saying it’s AI that is ultimately doomed and open source will be just fine. AI isn’t going to make it any easier to replicate the open source projects used to train it, well, for the same reason is doomed to fail: AI is based on exaggerated claims. No, companies aren’t going to use AI to make their own Linux kernel not bound by GPL licensing terms. What’s going to happen is the commercial AI bubble is going to pop, perhaps leaving behind open source AI models that will be used for the modest value they bring for certain tasks.

Yeah, I guess this is a bit of gray area. With GPL, you only have rights to code if it was distributed to you. In the case of GPL code that has only been distributed to select people and none of those people distributed it to the general public, but GitHub still trained their models on the private repo, then that would technically be in violation of the license. This would be a more niche scenario, though, since the intent normally is public distribution.

The LLMs are not distributing the GPL code, their weights are being trained on it. You can’t just have Copilot pump out something that works like the Linux kerne or Blender, except with different code that isn’t subject to the GPL license. At best, the AI can learn from it and assist humans with developing a proprietary alternative. In that case, it’s not really that much better than having humans study a GPL codebase and make a proprietary alternative without AI. It’s still going to cost a lot of money to replicate the thing no matter what, so why not just save money and use the GPL code and contribute back? Also, it’s going to be hard to sell your proprietary alternative, because why wouldn’t people just use the FOSS version?

I’d also be curious about where that 15-20% productivity increase comes from in aggregate.

This is from a Stanford study that is summarized here:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/does-ai-actually-boost-developer-productivity-striking-çelebi-tcp8f

There are other studies with different conclusions, but this one aligns with my own experience. To your point about how AI won’t reproduce the Linux kernel, this study also points out that AI is significantly less effective, even going into the negative, with complex codebases, which is in agreement with what you said, since the Linux kernel certainly qualifies as a complex codebase.

they are stealing code meant to be free and public with any derivative works, profiting off it, and then refusing to honor the license model of the code/project they stole.

I agree big tech is using open source unethically, but how much different is this situation from the other ways big tech profits from open source without contributing back? Training proprietary LLMs on open source code is shitty, rent-seeking behavior, but not really a unique development, and certainly not something that undermines the core value of open source.

Given that LLMs increase productivity in the aggregate by 15-20%, and sticking with Linux as an example, a LLM trained on the Linux kernel could be used to make a similar kernel with a ton of human effort. That company could then make a proprietary OS and sell it. Other companies then have the choice of using open source Linux, devoting a ton of their own resources to making a proprietary OS with a little help from AI, or licensing the other company’s proprietary OS. Everyone else can still use Linux and not care.

It’s possible I’m using the wrong example or overlooking something that would help me better understand this perspective.

I don’t follow how LLMs destroy open source. For example, a LLM trained on the Linux kernel could probably be used to produce a closed source kernel with a lot of human effort. Big tech companies already make a lot of money from Linux without ever contributing back. That doesn’t change the fact that we can all run Linux and not be trapped using proprietary garbage like Windows. Community contributions still help create a rising tide that raises all boats, and shitty big tech companies having their own massive yachts raised as well doesn’t really change that fact.

I hate big tech companies and the AI grift as much as anyone else here, but don’t really follow the article’s point.

The current tech brings a modest productivity increase when used correctly, but it isn’t really taking anyone’s jobs. Articles like this that support the fraudster’s false claim that it will are part of the problem. No, don’t tax AI, just don’t use taxpayer money to bail these fuckers out when the bubble pops.

I see we have Canonical employees among us.

I remember a time when webpages had banner ads that didn’t flicker and make it impossible to read the page, and that also weren’t based on corporations spying on you. If it had stopped there, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. Even a few second pre-roll ad before a video starts based on the video content and not the user’s history would be annoying, but something a lot of people would tolerate. But no, number must go up!

My next TV, I’m going to look into whether the PCB can be swapped with a computer monitor PCB made by the same company.

Cosmic isn’t my cup of tea, but I’m still really happy to see this release!

Gambling is an age-restricted activity because it exploits the brain’s reward mechanisms to drive profits, and can lead to addiction. Big tech social media platforms have a lot in common with slot machines, designed deliberately to drive profits, so this law makes sense. Now make free to play games with loot boxes an age-restricted activity.

DuckDuckGo has been a “good enough” option for me the last 5 years. A couple times a year when I’m not getting good results, I try the same search on Google and don’t get anything better.