7 ms·
The article isn't trying to find a particular example. It's talking about the overall stance of Linux on AI use. It argues that maintainers should consider poli
by ch71r22 2mo ago
The article isn't trying to find a particular example. It's talking about the overall stance of Linux on AI use. It argues that maintainers should consider political/moral/ethical arguments around climate change, effect on water supplies, energy prices, etc.
- gen2brain 2mo agoWhy not fix all the issues with private jets and yachts first? Why don't they use regular public transportation as we all do? Instead, let's bash poor Clanker, who reviews kernel code.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- atemerev 2mo agoAI is just a tech like any other. Can be powered by CO2-neutral electricity like anything else. Otherwise, we'll have to protest against aluminum cans, airplanes, golf courts, lemon trees, and whatever else that uses water or electricity.
- ch71r22 2mo agoThat's a false equivalence. AI is not the same as aluminum cans. All technologies have political, social, ethical, and economic aspects, and not all technologies are the same. AI is not, in reality, powered by CO2-neutral electricity. As the article mentions, AI is the fastest-growing energy user in the world, so it probably merits a deeper look than aluminum cans.
- atemerev 2mo agoAluminum production is one of the largest electricity consumers out there, much larger than AI.
- Legend2440 2mo agoTrue in fact. Aluminum manufacturing is responsible for roughly 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and if you add in metal manufacturing as a whole it comes up to 11%. Refining ore is very energy-intensive.
- Legend2440 2mo agoAI is also an incredibly useful tool that could automate many industries, so it deserves some leeway because of the benefits it provides. And while it is 'fastest-growing', it is small as an absolute share - around 0.2% of total world CO2 emissions.
- dminik 2mo agoSo it can both outprice people as well as take their jobs? Well, leeway away.
- Legend2440 2mo agoThe only reason we have the standard of living we do today is because of automation. I welcome more of it.
- dminik 2mo agoOnly insofar as you were able to keep a job. If you lose your job to automation, and there are no more jobs left, what do you do? Where do you get the money to keep your standard of living?
- Legend2440 2mo agoEither we will invent new jobs, as we have always done in the past. Or if truly all jobs can be done by machine, we retire and go live a life of fully automated luxury space communism.
- dminik 2mo agoI wish I could share your optimism.
- mbrumlow 2mo agoHaving jobs for the sake of having jobs sounds like living in hell. From what I can tell your argument works out to be as simple as we can’t do this because we want to keep people working, which the vast majority of people hate doing. There is a small minority of people who enjoy work. It seems cruel to enslave a people in mass simply to keep them busy.
- TiredOfLife 2mo ago> AI is not the same as aluminum cans. True. AI is actually useful.
- lptrap 2mo agoAluminum cans had a distinct use. AI just invades a perfectly working industry that made Torvalds filthy rich and adds nothing- And he defends it because he is corporate now. It is more like leaded fuel or DDT.
- atemerev 2mo agoAdds nothing? In what world are you living?
- NewJazz 2mo agoPlenty of people campaign against things like airplanes or golf courses. They might even be the same folks protesting AI usage! Imagine that!
- atemerev 2mo agoWell thanks, but I prefer to have airplanes, and maybe occasionally even golf courses. As for climate change - you'd need to protest against Chinese (and Western, but mostly Chinese) coal and gas power plants way way before than you protest against airplanes and golf courses. I don't see too many protesters holding signs like "stop Chinese coal plants". For some reason.
- NewJazz 2mo agoMaybe because their ability to influence coal power generation policy in China is much less than their ability to influence it in the US? Or because Chinese AI has enabled a complete crackdown on dissent? Hmm, imagine that!
- atemerev 2mo agoWell I see much less protests against gas and coal powered stations in the US than against, say, nuclear.
- criddell 2mo ago> It argues that maintainers should consider political/moral/ethical arguments around climate change, effect on water supplies, energy prices, etc Is the assumption that maintainers did not consider those things?
- ethbr1 2mo agoImho, this is the crux of the debate. Of course Linus realizes linux development is political, because he's lived that, however he might phrase it. What I think both are actually saying: Drew Devault (blogger): Linux development should place political/moral/ethical arguments in primacy (or at least more important?) Linus: Technical reality should always come first, with other considerations secondary If the above read is correct, I'm sympathetic to Linus' position. If the linux kernel doesn't work and improve, technically, then nothing else about the project matters. Bikeshedding about political/moral/ethical qualms impairs the technical work. Ergo, a strong lighthouse statement from Linus that the technical work always comes first, even if other considerations are made when appropriate. The AI genie (referring broadly to 'any LLM-based tool that performs a useful development function') isn't going back in the bottle, and linux sticking its head in the sand for ethical reasons will harm linux.
- criddell 2mo agoOne could place political/moral/ethical arguments in primacy and still conclude that the greater good is best served by continuing on.