Will FreeBSD adopt a No-AI policy or such?

LibreQuest said:
I would disagree, the idea of forcing an idea or a program onto others is not ethical. Implying that one must or has to accept something is also typically "doomerism" inspiring.

Artificial Intelligence research and applications have been around for many decades represented in both hardware and software. The unregulated abuse of the open web, I believe, should not be tolerated. Technology should not be programmed to disregard the rights of the users, the license of different works, or the ability to choose not to participate. The alternative is force, and force always has resisitance.

Deciding what "we" do with it implies that "we" have a right to use the training data in these programs. And that is very questionable if not outright an abuse of the open internet.
Click to expand...
If we discuss the ethics:
1. We'll never agree on them pleasing everybody or even most people.
2. We genuinely risk that other countries develop more powerful models because they don't have the same moral itch as us. We must know how the models behave with all the data produced by mankind. It's a Faustian bargain that I completely understand.

The discussion is impossible right now because there's lots of noise and the extremes only see black & white.

We can only be pragmatic about this pushing for open models, open data and so on.
 
rbranco said:
If we discuss the ethics:
1. We'll never agree on them pleasing everybody or even most people.
2. We genuinely risk that other countries develop more powerful models because they don't have the same moral itch as us. We must know how the models behave with all the data produced by mankind. It's a Faustian bargain that I completely understand.

The discussion is impossible right now because there's lots of noise and the extremes only see black & white.

We can only be pragmatic about this pushing for open models, open data and so on.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think the goal should be pleasing everyone but not harming anyone would be a fine goal. But the real questions is "What will the elected core team policy be?" :D

The rest of what you are saying is a geopolitical reference, in which case I don't have an opinion.

I think we can both agree that the tech is good. I guess we really only disagree on the current overall usage.
 
As long as it's opt-in and fully documented, no problem.
I'm not expecting they will allow supported hardware or programs in the base that do obscure data-exchange with online AI services. How is a firewall going to explain that?
 
rbranco said:
It's documented here: https://wiki.netbsd.org/zfs/

ZFS on root isn't supported in the installer yet, though, and I don't quite understand the wiki here:

Also interesting:

Re: ZFS status on NetBSD

mail-index.netbsd.org mail-index.netbsd.org
Click to expand...
Heh, even NetBSD is tipping its hat to FreeBSD, at least as far as ZFS goes...
😏

As for AI - yeah, it's possible to treat it as an advanced tool that can help, and it looks like the debate is really over what actually happens when AI usage gets out of hand - what THAT looks like, and what the consequences are. If you use a hammer for everything, eventually everything will appear to you as something that can be solved with a hammer - even if in reality, the hammer is not the best tool for the job at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top