I mention software freedom whenever I can.

Profile avatar is “kiwi fruit” by Marius Schnabel. CC BY-SA 4.0 | I am not affiliated with OpenMoji.

  • 1 Post
  • 998 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle







  • tabular@lemmy.worldtoLinux@lemmy.mlFedora OBS Drama Resolved
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Has a software update ever changed something in a way you dislike? When it’s proprietary software your choices are to:

    • tolerate the anti-feature
    • downgrade and keep using an older version instead (if feasible also has demerits)
    • hope someone reverse engineers a work-around
    • stop using the software

    When the software is free (libre) then a communities can change it (e.g. removing an anti-feature) via the source code.

    Sadly it’s not enough to simply “then don’t use it” - proprietary software proliferates society (interacting socially, with the government, with banks, etc). Since it’s better to be in control of your own computing anyway then might as well promote the values of software freedom.




  • tabular@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.worldCan I ethically use LLMs?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I’m unsure that using complicated algebra to regurgitate parts of people’s works is different from just copying it. Perhaps you could say a human brain learning how to code is just regurgitating the code it’s had as an input before, but intuition says directly copying is somehow different.

    I add copyleft licenses to code to ensure the code cannot be legally copied into proprietary software, for moral beliefs. If the output of a LLM was free software and copyleft (as would be the input) then perhaps that would be fine. Github probably has some complicated legalese that says by uploading it you permit them to use it for LLMs - I’d want that to be legally voided.










  • A law to prevent spreading false history may sound good but I fear it’s not a good solution. In bad hands the law can instead can attack history to promote a false one. If an inconvenient truth happens to looks like the dribble a Holocaust denier would say then good hands may punish an otherwise good person, promoting a different incorrect history.

    I’m convinced I cannot trust anyone to judge - for me - what I should be able to read/hear. There must be better ways to defeat Nazism ideology.