• grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Who said 100% was the goal? We don’t ever have 100% guaranteed exploit free code, or 100% guaranteed spyware free code, etc. The point is you send a message and try your best if you think those are worthwhile goals to attain.

    The people saying “but we can’t possibly stop all usage, so why try” aren’t being pragmatic; imo they’re giving up. My assumption is because they don’t want to confront the nasty externalities of their own ai use.

    The same could be said of a lot of technologies that enable greater corporate capture at the expense of the environment and overall human wellbeing—and we should be doing something about those as well.

    • Peacepath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I agree with you, and from my understanding (which could be inaccurate) the position of debian is to avoid a part of the use of that technology they judge both wrong and avoidable.

      My own nasty use of AI is mostly to find back the name or syntaxe of functions I seldom use, and sometimes to explain me some theorical points. I admit it is wrong and only spares me only a few hours a week at most compared to stack overflow and online tutorials.

      And my laziness would probably make me accept the existance of one model that would be a public property democraticaly controled ; which would consume less ressources than having many concurrents, and avoid the profit-oriented and corporate mindsets (I imagine them being the main source of threat)…