Whenever AI is mentioned lots of people in the Linux space immediately react negatively. Creators like TheLinuxExperiment on YouTube always feel the need to add a disclaimer that “some people think AI is problematic” or something along those lines if an AI topic is discussed. I get that AI has many problems but at the same time the potential it has is immense, especially as an assistant on personal computers (just look at what “Apple Intelligence” seems to be capable of.) Gnome and other desktops need to start working on integrating FOSS AI models so that we don’t become obsolete. Using an AI-less desktop may be akin to hand copying books after the printing press revolution. If you think of specific problems it is better to point them out and try think of solutions, not reject the technology as a whole.
TLDR: A lot of ludite sentiments around AI in Linux community.
I won’t rehash the arguments around “AI” that others are best placed to make.
My main issue is AI as a term is basically a marketing one to convince people that these tools do something they don’t and its causing real harm. Its redirecting resources and attention onto a very narrow subset of tools replacing other less intensive tools. There are significant impacts to these tools (during an existential crisis around our use and consumption of energy). There are some really good targeted uses of machine learning techniques but they are being drowned out by a hype train that is determined to make the general public think that we have or are near Data from Star Trek.
Addtionally, as others have said the current state of “AI” has a very anti FOSS ethos. With big firms using and misusing their monopolies to steal, borrow and coopt data that isn’t theirs to build something that contains that’s data but is their copyright. Some of this data is intensely personal and sensitive and the original intent behind the sharing is not for training a model which may in certain circumstances spit out that data verbatim.
Lastly, since you use the term Luddite. Its worth actually engaging with what that movement was about. Whilst its pitched now as generic anti-technology backlash in fact it was a movement of people who saw what the priorities and choices in the new technology meant for them: the people that didn’t own the technology and would get worse living and work conditions as a result. As it turned out they were almost exactly correct in thier predictions. They are indeed worth thinking about as allegory for the moment we find ourselves in. How do ordinary people want this technology to change our lives? Who do we want to control it? Given its implications for our climate needs can we afford to use it now, if so for what purposes?
Personally, I can’t wait for the hype train to pop (or maybe depart?) so we can get back to rational discussions about the best uses of machine learning (and computing in general) for the betterment of all rather than the enrichment of a few.
It’s a surprisingly good comparison especially when you look at the reactions: frame breaking vs data poisoning.
The problem isn’t progress, the problem is that some of us disagree with the Idea that what’s being touted is actual progress. The things llms are actually good at they’ve being doing for years (language translations) the rest of it is so inexact it can’t be trusted.
I can’t trust any llm generated code because it lies about what it’s doing, so I need to verify everything it generates anyway in which case it’s easier to write it myself. I keep trying it and it looks impressive until it ends up at a way worse version of something I could have already written.
I assume that it’s the same way with everything I’m not an expert in. In which case it’s worse than useless to me, I can’t trust anything it says.
The only thing I can use it for is to tell me things I already know and that basically makes it a toy or a game.
That’s not even getting into the security implications of giving shitty software access to all your sensitive data etc.
If you are so keen on correctness, please don’t say “LLMs are lying”. Lying is a conscious action of deceiving. LLMs are not capable of that. That’s exactly the problem: they don’t think, they just assemble with probability. If they could lie, they could also produce real answers.
I’ve never heard anyone explicitly say this but I’m sure a lot of people (i.e. management) think that AI is a replacement for static code. If you have a component with constantly changing requirements then it can make sense, but don’t ask an llm to perform a process that’s done every single day in the exact same way. Chief among my AI concerns is the amount of energy it uses. It feels like we could mostly wean off of carbon emitting fuels in 50 years but if energy demand skyrockets will be pushing those dates back by decades.
My concern with AI is also with its energy usage. There’s a reason OpenAI has tons of datacenters, yet people think it does not take much because “free”!
Oh. So modern presentation of the luddite movement is also propaganda?
Right, another aspect of the Luddite movement is that they lost. They failed to stop the spread of industrialization and machinery in factories.
Screaming at a train moving 200kmph hoping it will stop.
So, lick the boot instead of resisting you say?
Work on useful alternatives to big corpo crapware = lick the boot?
Mkay…
It was more in response to your comments. I don’t think anyone has a problem with useful FOSS alternatives per se.
You misunderstand the Luddite movement. They weren’t anti-technology, they were anti-capitalist exploitation.
The 1810s: The Luddites act against destitution
It is fashionable to stigmatise the Luddites as mindless blockers of progress. But they were motivated by an innate sense of self-preservation, rather than a fear of change. The prospect of poverty and hunger spurred them on. Their aim was to make an employer (or set of employers) come to terms in a situation where unions were illegal.
They probably wouldn’t be such a laughing stock if they were successful.
All we have are words or violence.
Reminder that we don’t even have AI yet, just learning machine models, which are not the same thing despite wide misuse of the term AI.
Have you mentioned that in gaming forums aswell when they talked about AI?
AI is a broad term and can mean many different things, it does not need to mean ‘true’ AI
But ml is a type of ai. Just because the word makes you think of androids and skynet doesn’t mean that’s the only thing that can be called so. Personally never understood this attempt at limiting the word to that now while ai has been used for lesser computer intelligences for a long time.
We don’t have Machine Intellegince though.
I wrote ml. If you didn’t misread, what are you talking about?
That’s just nitpicking. Everyone here knows what we mean by AI. Yes it refers to LLMs.
Reminds me of Richard Stallman always interjecting to say “actually its gnu/Linux or as I like to say gnu plus Linux”…
Well no Mr Stallman its actually gnu + Linux + Wayland + systemd + chromium and whatever other software you have installed, are you happy now??
As someone who frequently interacts with the tech illiterate, no they don’t. This sudden rush to put weighed text hallucination tables into everything isn’t that helpful. The hype feels like self driving cars or 3D TVs for those of us old enough to remember that. The potential for damage is much higher than either of those two preceding fads and cars actually killed poeple. I think many of us are expressing a healthy level of skepticism toward the people who need to sell us the next big thing and it is absolutely warranted.
It’s exactly like self driving everyone is like this is the time we are going to get AGI. But it well be like everything else overhyped and under deliver. Sure it well have its uses companies well replace people with it and they enshitificstion well continue.
The potential for damage is much higher
Doubt it. Maybe Microsoft can fuck it up somehow but the tech is here to stay and will do massive good.
You can doubt all you like but we keep seeing the training data leaking out with passwords and personal information. This problem won’t be solved by the people who created it since they don’t care and fundamentally the technology will always show that lack of care. FOSS ones may do better in this regard but they are still datasets without context. Thats the crux of the issue. The program or LLM has no context for what it says. That’s why you get these nonsensical responses telling people that killing themselves is a valid treatment for a toothache. Intelligence is understanding. The “AI” or LLM or, as I like to call them, glorified predictive textbars, doesn’t understand the words it is stringing together and most people don’t know that due to flowery marketing language and hype. The threat is real.
Not to mention the hulucinations. What a great marketing term for it’s fucking wrong.
They act like its the computer daydreaming. No, its wrong. The machine that is supposed to provide me correct information. It didn’t it. These marketing wizards are selling snake oil in such a lovely bottle these days.
To be 🤓 really really nitpicky, and i’m writing this because I find it interesting, not an attack or whatever. A tongue in cheek AcHtUaLlY 🤓
GNU/Linux is the “whole operating system”, and everything else is extra. The usefulness of an operating system without applications is debatable but they 🤓 technically aren’t required to complete the definition of an operating system.
But this is also basically the debate of Linux vs GNU/Linux vs also needing applications to make a useful operating system.
Quoting wiki summary,
In its original meaning, and one still common in hardware engineering, the operating system is a basic set of functions to control the hardware and manage things like task scheduling and system calls. In modern terminology used by software developers, the collection of these functions is usually referred to as a kernel, while an ‘operating system’ is expected to have a more extensive set of programmes. The GNU project maintains two kernels itself, allowing the creation of pure GNU operating systems, but the GNU toolchain is also used with non-GNU kernels. Due to the two different definitions of the term ‘operating system’, there is an ongoing debate concerning the naming of distributions of GNU packages with a non-GNU kernel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU?wprov=sfti1#GNU_as_an_operating_system
Don’t tell me Linux mint would still be Linux mint without the a desktop environment like Cinnamon. An os is the collection of all the software not just the low level code.
Well that’s the debate! Is it “GNU/Linux Mint”? What about the desktop environment, “GNU/Linux Mint Cinnamon”?
ed.
Don’t tell me …
Absolutely not telling you - just reiterating the ongoing debate
Linux doesnt need GNU components at all to be a functional operating system. And you wouldnt see any difference if your http server works on GNU/Linux or Linux without GNU.
On the other hand there is difference between an AI and LLM. The difference is signifacant enough to distinguish. You may mean LLMs if you talk about AI, but tbh I though you didnt. Because many people dont.
Linux doesnt need GNU components at all to be a functional operating system.
Indeed: look no further than Alpine Linux.
Alpine Linux is a Linux distribution designed to be small, simple, and secure. It uses musl, BusyBox, and OpenRC instead of the more commonly used glibc, GNU Core Utilities, and systemd. This makes Alpine one of few Linux distributions not to be based on the GNU Core Utilities.
I think the biggest problem is that ai for now is not an exact tool that gets everything right. Because that’s just not what it is built to do. Which goes against much of the philosophy of most tools you’d find on your Linux PC.
Secondly: Many people who choose Linux or other foss operating system do so, at least partially, to stay in control over their system which includes knowing why stuff happens and being able to fix stuff. Again that is just not what AI can currently deliver and it’s unlikely it will ever do that.
So I see why people just choose to ignore the whole thing all together.
This and on top of being inexact, it’s not understandable and un-transparent. These are two of the top reasons to push for free software. Even if the engine executing and teaching models are free, the model itself can’t really be considered free because of its lack of transparency.
I think the biggest problem is that ai for now is not an exact tool that gets everything right.
The biggest problem is that it isn’t an exact tool, but is being presented as if it was and implemented as a replacement for people instead of a tool they can use to make themselves more efficient.
Yeah, sure don’t want Skynet built-in on my Linux Distro.
Good point about the imprecision. On the other hand most Linux desktop users are Normie’s, think Steam deck and so on.
Some of the most popular Linux desktops are built for ordinary people with the KISS principle in mind. Not arch using tinkerers
I’m not saying nobody should work on this. There is obviously demand or at least big tech is assuming demand. I’m just saying it’s not surprising to me a lot of Foss developers don’t really care.
I used ubuntu until a few weeks ago, where I switched to Pop OS. In this sense, I might be close to the “normies”. Yet, I am incredibly skeptical of AI.
It’s distinct.
On the other hand most Linux desktop users are Normie’s, think Steam deck and so on.
Jesus fuck what a statement. Your parents probably regret having you.
That’s not the tone I like to read even as an answer to a statement I don’t agree with. No need to get that personal.
YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, YOU’RE NOT EVEN MY REAL DAD
You don’t know that.
…this looks like it was written by a supervisor who has no idea what AI actually is, but desperately wants it shoehorned into the next project because it’s the latest buzzword.
Guys we need AI on our blockchain web3.0 iot. Just imagine the synergy
I see you’ve met my employer
No, it is because people in the Linux community are usually a bit more tech-savvy than average and are aware that OpenAI/Microsoft is very likely breaking the law in how they collect data for training their AI.
We have seen that companies like OpenAI completely disregard the rights of the people who created this data that they use in their for-profit LLMs (like what they did to Scarlett Johansson), their rights to control whether the code/documentation/artwork is used in for-profit ventures, especially when stealing Creative Commons “Share Alike” licensed documentation, or GPL licensed code which can only be used if the code that reuses it is made public, which OpenAI and Microsoft does not do.
So OpenAI has deliberately conflated LLM technology with general intelligence (AGI) in order to hype their products, and so now their possibly illegal actions are also being associated with all AI. The anger toward AI is not directed at the technology itself, it is directed at companies like OpenAI who have tried to make their shitty brand synonymous with the technology.
And I haven’t even yet mentioned:
- how people are getting fired by companies who are replacing them with AI
- or how it has been used to target civilians in war zones
- or how deep fakes are being used to scam vulnerable people.
The technology could be used for good, especially in the Linux community, but lately there has been a surge of unethical (and sometimes outright criminal) uses of AI by some of the worlds wealthiest companies.
Luddites were not as opposed to new technology as you say it here. They were mainly concerned about what technology would do to whom.
A helpful history right here: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/brian-merchant/blood-in-the-machine/9780316487740/?lens=little-brown
Thanks for the history lesson, these days it is used to refer to those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation, or new technologies or even progress in general.
These days, it is often misused by ignorant people because it sounds derogatory.
FTFY
Gnome and other desktops need to start working on integrating FOSS AI models so that we don’t become obsolete.
I don’t get it. How Linux destops would become obsolete if they don’t have native AI toolsets on DEs? It’s not like they have a 80% market share. People who run them as daily drivers are still niche, and most don’t even know Linux exists. Most ppl grown up with Microsoft and Apple shoving ads down their throat, using them in schools first hand, and that’s all they know and taught. If I need AI, I will find ways to intergrate to my workflow, not by the dev thinks I need it.
And if you really need something like MS’s Recall, here is a FOSS version of it.
Its a good point but you can always have even lesa market share.
A floss project’s success is not necessarily marked by its market share but often by the absolute benefit it gives to its users. A project with one happy user and developer can be a success.
There are already a lot of open models and tools out there. I totally disagree that Linux distros or DEs should be looking to bake in AI features. People can run an LLM on their computer just like they run any other application.
I’m not against AI. I’m against the hoards of privacy-disrespecting data collection, the fact that everybody is irresponsibility rushing to slap AI into everything even when it doesn’t make sense because line go up, and the fact nobody is taking the limitations of things like Large Language Models seriously.
The current AI craze is like the NFTs craze in a lot of ways, but more useful and not going to just disappear. In a year or three the crazed C-level idiots chasing the next magic dragon will settle down, the technology will settle into the places where it’s actually useful, and investors will stop throwing all the cash at any mention of AI with zero skepticism.
It’s not Luddite to be skeptical of the hot new craze. It’s prudent as long as you don’t let yourself slip into regressive thinking.
Gnome and other desktops need to start working on integrating FOSS
In addition to everything everyone else has already said, why does this have anything to do with desktop environments at all? Remember, most open-source software comes from one or two individual programmers scratching a personal itch—not all of it is part of your DE, nor should it be. If someone writes an open-source LLM-driven program that does something useful to a significant segment of the Linux community, it will get packaged by at least some distros, accrete various front-ends in different toolkits, and so on.
However, I don’t think that day is coming soon. Most of the things “Apple Intelligence” seems to be intended to fuel are either useless or downright offputting to me, and I doubt I’m the only one—for instance, I don’t talk to my computer unless I’m cussing it out, and I’d rather it not understand that. My guess is that the first desktop-directed offering we see in Linux is going to be an image generator frontend, which I don’t need but can see use cases for even if usage of the generated images is restricted (see below).
Anyway, if this is your particular itch, you can scratch it—by paying someone to write the code for you (or starting a crowdfunding campaign for same), if you don’t know how to do it yourself. If this isn’t worth money or time to you, why should it be to anyone else? Linux isn’t in competition with the proprietary OSs in the way you seem to think.
As for why LLMs are so heavily disliked in the open-source community? There are three reasons:
- The fact that they give inaccurate responses, which can be hilarious, dangerous, or tedious depending on the question asked, but a lot of nontechnical people, including management at companies trying to incorporate “AI” into their products, don’t realize the answers can be dangerously innacurate.
- Disputes over the legality and morality of using scraped data in training sets.
- Disputes over who owns the copyright of LLM-generated code (and other materials, but especiallly code).
Item 1 can theoretically be solved by bigger and better AI models, but 2 and 3 can’t be. They have to be decided by the courts, and at an international level, too. We might even be talking treaty negotiations. I’d be surprised if that takes less than ten years. In the meanwhile, for instance, it’s very, very dangerous for any open-source project to accept a code patch written with the aid of an LLM—depending on the conclusion the courts come to, it might have to be torn out down the line, along with everything built on top of it. The inability to use LLM output for open source or commercial purposes without taking a big legal risk kneecaps the value of the applications. Unlike Apple or Microsoft, the Linux community can’t bribe enough judges to make the problems disappear.
Is there no electron wrapper around ChatGPT yet? Jeez we better hurry, imagine having to use your browser like… For pretty much everything else.
I did not buy these gaming memory sticks for nothing, bring me more electron!
AI just requires a level oftrust all of these companies have not earned.
It doesnt though, local models would be at the core of FOSS AI, and they dont require you to trust anyone with your data.
local models would be at the core of FOSS AI, and they dont require you to trust anyone with your data.
Would? You’re slipping between imaginary and apparently declarative statements. Very typical of “AI” hype.
Local models WOULD form the basis of FOSS AI. Supposition on my part but entirely supportable given there is already a open source model movement focus on producing local models and open source software is generally privacy focused.
Local models ARE inherently private due to the way that no information leaves the device it is processed on.
I know you dont want to engage with arguments and instead just wail at the latest daemon for internet points, but you can have more than one statement in a sentence without being incoherent.
Gnome and other desktops need to start working on integrating FOSS AI models so that we don’t become obsolete.
lol no thanks.
Whenever AI is mentioned lots of people in the Linux space immediately react negatively.
Because whenever AI is mentioned it usually isn’t even close to what AI meant.
A lot of mentions of AI from companies is absolute marketing bullshit. And if you can’t see that you don’t want to.
