The actual body of his message seems to be more about him taking a stance that AI is a tool and people working on the project are free to choose to use it because it does have technical merit, which he considers the deciding factor in the case of the Linux kernel.
It’s actually a pretty calm and reasonable message, I don’t think the sensationalist title is warranted.
Yes, and that sentiment captures exactly 2 sentences of a many paragraph email. It happens to be the part that can be interpreted most like drama from it, hence its a sensationalist title.
But, we don’t really want to encourage the use of AI as a technology, despite its helpfulness. Its destroying so much already like clean water, habitats for animals, the sound generated from there data centers drives off wildlife. The pollution (Grok running on jet engine turbines to power the TX plants ), etc.
Unless there are those running their own tiny instances, it’s not really worth it.
I agree with you, and also consider the current AI setup destructive and unethical all the way from the model creation from mostly stolen data to the data centers to run it with the issue you listed.
I would also prefer if more people spoke up on that to fasten the demise of this current hype.
That being said I also realise that Linux (and therefore the kernel) is incredibly important in a different fight for privacy and owning our own devices. If it were to fall behind because they completely lock themselves off from the admittedly useful aspects of AI, it could backfire in a different way.
I think it’s a lose-lose situation here and he understandably picked the side that’s more impactful for the Linux kernel (and him).
As people mentioned in other publication about this those problems, which are devastating, are not being caused by the technology itself but the corpos (and the diabolical and insatiable greed of those who run them) behind it. As you are concluding, local llms can be fine, though I’d think he could have a stronger instance about that point - trying to discourage people about using corporate llms and incentivating local llms.
it can be really dumb, but it can also be extremely useful for some things. i think that’s pretty much linus’ stance–and if you do use it, you are the one wholly responsible for what comes out of it.
The actual body of his message seems to be more about him taking a stance that AI is a tool and people working on the project are free to choose to use it because it does have technical merit, which he considers the deciding factor in the case of the Linux kernel.
It’s actually a pretty calm and reasonable message, I don’t think the sensationalist title is warranted.
He does literally say if people have issues with that stance, they can fork Linux…
Yes, and that sentiment captures exactly 2 sentences of a many paragraph email. It happens to be the part that can be interpreted most like drama from it, hence its a sensationalist title.
Yeah but in FOSS sense.
But, we don’t really want to encourage the use of AI as a technology, despite its helpfulness. Its destroying so much already like clean water, habitats for animals, the sound generated from there data centers drives off wildlife. The pollution (Grok running on jet engine turbines to power the TX plants ), etc.
Unless there are those running their own tiny instances, it’s not really worth it.
I agree with you, and also consider the current AI setup destructive and unethical all the way from the model creation from mostly stolen data to the data centers to run it with the issue you listed.
I would also prefer if more people spoke up on that to fasten the demise of this current hype.
That being said I also realise that Linux (and therefore the kernel) is incredibly important in a different fight for privacy and owning our own devices. If it were to fall behind because they completely lock themselves off from the admittedly useful aspects of AI, it could backfire in a different way.
I think it’s a lose-lose situation here and he understandably picked the side that’s more impactful for the Linux kernel (and him).
As people mentioned in other publication about this those problems, which are devastating, are not being caused by the technology itself but the corpos (and the diabolical and insatiable greed of those who run them) behind it. As you are concluding, local llms can be fine, though I’d think he could have a stronger instance about that point - trying to discourage people about using corporate llms and incentivating local llms.
it can be really dumb, but it can also be extremely useful for some things. i think that’s pretty much linus’ stance–and if you do use it, you are the one wholly responsible for what comes out of it.