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.

  • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

        • NoiseColor@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well not at all. What a word means is not defined by what you might think. When the majority starts to use a word for something and that sticks, it can be adopted. That happens all the time and I have read articles about it many times. Even for our current predicament. Language is evolving. Meanings change. And yes ai today includes what is technically machine learning. Sorry friend, that’s how it works. Sure you can be the grumpy drunk at a bar complaining that this is not strictly ai by some definition while the rest of the world rolls their eyes and proceeds to more meaningful debates.

          • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Words have meaning and, sure, they can be abused and change meaning over time but let’s be real here: AI is a hype term with no basis on reality. We do not have AI, we aren’t even all that close. You can make all the ad hominem comments you want but at the end of the day, the terminology comes from ignorant figureheads hyping shit up for profit (at great environmental cost too, LLM aka “AI” takes up a lot of power while yielding questionable results).

            Kinda sounds like you bought into the hype, friend.

            • NoiseColor@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              You missed the point again, oh dear! Let me try again in simpler terms : you yourself dont define words, how they are used in the public does. So if the world calls it ai, then the word will mean what everybody means when they use it.

              This is how the words come to be, evolve and are at the end put in the dictionary. Nobody cares what you think. Ai today includes ML. Get over it.

              Nice try with deflection attempts, but I really don’t care about them, I’m only here to teach you where words come from and to tell you, the article is written about you.

              Also that I’m out of time for this. Bye.

        • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          6 months ago

          Its an interesting discussion. But I disagree you have a clear cut fact.

          Just because it’s a computer writing things with math why do you say it is not intelligence. It would be helpful if you could be more detailed here.

    • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      6 months ago

      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??

      • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        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

        • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            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

  • zerakith@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • someacnt_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        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”!

    • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

        • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          6 months ago

          Work on useful alternatives to big corpo crapware = lick the boot?

          Mkay…

          • kronisk @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            It was more in response to your comments. I don’t think anyone has a problem with useful FOSS alternatives per se.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          6 months ago

          They probably wouldn’t be such a laughing stock if they were successful.

  • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

      • callcc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

  • DigDoug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    …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.

  • Ramin Honary@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

  • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • nyan@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    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:

    1. 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.
    2. Disputes over the legality and morality of using scraped data in training sets.
    3. 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.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    Is there no electron wrapper around ChatGPT yet? Jeez we better hurry, imagine having to use your browser like… For pretty much everything else.

    • Goun@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I did not buy these gaming memory sticks for nothing, bring me more electron!

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It doesnt though, local models would be at the core of FOSS AI, and they dont require you to trust anyone with your data.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

  • icerunner_origin@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    One of the critical differences between FOSS and commercial software is that FOSS projects don’t need to drive sales and consequently also don’t need to immediately jump onto technology trends in order to not look like they’re lagging behind the competition.

    What I’ve consistently seen from FOSS over the 30 years I’ve been using it, is that if a technology choice is a good fit for the problem, then it will be adopted into projects where relevant.

    I believe that there are use cases where LLM processing is absolutely a good fit, and the projects that need that functionality will use it. What you’re less likely to see is ‘AI’ added to everything, because it isn’t generally a good solution to most problems in it’s current form.

    As an aside, you may be less likely to get good faith interaction with your question while using the term ‘luddite’ as it is quite pejorative.

  • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • chrash0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    yeah i see that too. it seems like mostly a reactionary viewpoint. the reaction is understandable to a point since a lot of the “AI” features are half baked and forced on the user. to that point i don’t think GNOME etc should be scrambling to add copies of these features.

    what i would love to see is more engagement around additional pieces of software that are supplemental. for example, i would love if i could install a daemon that indexes my notes and allows me to do semantic search. or something similar with my images.

    the problems with AI features aren’t within the tech itself but in the surrounding politics. it’s become commonplace for “responsible” AI companies like OpenAI to not even produce papers around their tech (product announcement blogs that are vaguely scientific don’t count), much less source code, weights, and details on training data. and even when Meta releases their weights, they don’t specify their datasets. the rat race to see who can make a decent product with this amazing tech has made the whole industry a bunch of pearl clutching FOMO based tweakers. that sparks a comparison to blockchain, which is fair from the perspective of someone who hasn’t studied the tech or simply hasn’t seen a product that is relevant to them. but even those people will look at something fantastical like ChatGPT as if it’s pedestrian or unimpressive because when i asked it to write an implementation of the HTTP spec in the style of Fetty Wap it didn’t run perfectly the first time.

    • moreeni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Finally, a sane answer! Sadly it’s buried all the way down here in the thread

  • HouseWolf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Half the reason I switched to Linux almost a year ago was to avoid Microsofts forced invasive Ai bullshit. Seeing stuff like Recall has only cemented my decision.

    I could go on a long rant about what I consider “right & wrong” when it comes to Ai but I’m just some dude and wanna use my own computer in the way I want to.