- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Was expecting something along the lines of “I didn’t agree, so will step down”… but (edited):
… I want the consequences of Debian fully embracing fascist-backed technology to be known.
I can not support the current decision of Debian about LLM use, and am no longer willing to be seen as a part of Debian under these new rules. Pretending to have a “neutral stance” when faced with fascism is not neutrality, it’s active collaboration.
Fuck that, I’m out, …
What makes them call LLMs “fascist”? I guess you could say that individuals who aren’t super rich can’t train them by themselves, so relying on them currently means you’re relying on these fuckers.
That would be quite the stretch though …
The response to the mail seems to think the same:
Not sure if there’s any point in saying this, but the fact that the technology has notable companies pushing it forward that are often associated with fascism does not mean that the technology itself is somehow inextricably linked to fascism, just like how Microsoft making an operating system doesn’t associate operating systems in general with Microsoft or their goals. The GR was concerned with the technology as a whole AFAICT, not the companies developing some variants of it.
I suspect it’s because the juggernauts of the AI industry are mostly American companies, owned by billionaires, and are in Trump’s current circle of buddies.
There are billionaires who are “just” enemies of the working class, and then there are american billionaires from silicon valley, who want to actively destroy democracy and serve in a proto facist government they are very entangled in
Ofc (the currently popular) ai models are tools of facism, what else would they be?
