upvote
It's clear that without hardware freedom, even if we disassemble the bot, the means to run it can still be controlled by hardware vendors. We need our own means to make the substrate for the intelligence too. But the problem is, as long as the manufacturing process is impossibly complex, and relies on minerals extracted all around the world, requiring complex supply chains, its beyond any local group of people to do themselves. What we need is a way of creating substrate for open intelligence just form the materials and resources that are available to any human, and then the freedom to train it to behaving in a way that alignes with our own values and local situation. But the problem with OSS adoption, is that its a real chore for normal people to set up and use it, so we need to make this process of creating our own intelegence host as fun as possible, to encourage people to do it..
reply
This. Nailed it. This right here is the core issue. Thanks for writing.
reply
No one knows how the open source models work either.
reply
Even if the model was open source, nobody would still know how the generated code works. You wouldn't even really know in want interesting sense of the word why the model produced the output you got.
reply
Open source really should mean open training dataset, not merely open weights. There are some truly open source models and you can reproduce their training process if you have the compute. I can't think of a reason why those kinds of models would be incompatible with Stallmanism. Presumably they will get better and more widespread over time, like free software
reply
LLMs are even more proprietary than regular proprietary software, I think you've got it right here. They are destroying the free software movement and it seems like most people don't even realize what's happening.
reply
LLMs are a fundamentally different category of thing to software. Developing them is closer to breeding cows than writing code.
reply
I definitely agree on this. You don't program an LLM and thus come to an understanding of what it does in the same way you do for a compiler, an operating system, a game engine, a CRUD app, or a web front-end.

Something that's the output of mass-effort machine learning algorithms is categorically different to human-made-and-understandable software. Do we have terms for these different categories?

reply
The damage isn't restricted to software. AI is the intellectual equivalent of asbestos.

Asbestos is an amazing fire retardant. That's why nearly every building built before we knew how cancerous it was contains it.

reply