Open source software comes as-is and without warranty but that doesn’t mean you can’t criticize what people are doing in this space…
In fact i’d argue it is integral to it.
That framing is missing a lot. Open source software is way more than about using the code. For me, it is not the bugs and quality that concern me most about things like this (though I do have concerns with that too). It’s about the broader issues with LLMs in terms of cooperate power, environmental impact, etc. Calling it out is less about any one project and more about stopping the whole open source ecosystem from spiraling into an LLM-dependent mess. LLMs themselves can easily become the death of FOSS in a broader sense
LLMs flip the power dynamics of development on their head. For starters, the outputs are likely no longer copyrightable in many jurisdictions, which undermines copyleft licenses (rsync is under GPL for example).
The kind of code that LLMs generate also tend to add complexity rather fast where it becomes more and more difficult for any human to understand it. Becoming dependent on LLMs makes development more of a question of computing power rather than effort. Companies will be able to spend more than you. FOSS will not be able to compete nearly as well. It’s also an inherent dependency on big tech companies who will be happy to exploit that the second they can or cut you off it you start to hit their bottom line. Software cannot be free in terms of freedom if modifying it in a reasonable amount of time starts to almost require a tool controlled by someone else
Using “Open Source” (which has somehow become “public weights” to most) / local LLMs are hardly freedom from this either given that they will always be behind given the massive financial costs to make models, unlike traditional software. If you find any advantage or way to reduce resource usage to make a better model, the bigger tech companies will just quickly scale that up far bigger than you can and meet or exceed what you have. It still just as well makes your ability to modify software dependent on the hardware you have. How free is open source software if it becomes increasingly difficult to modify without an expensive GPU?
I have worked on open source projects. I cannot fork sheer number of projects going towards LLMs alone. This is a losing proposition. Open source is not an individualistic action. This is a collective action, and we need developers of open source to live the values of open source
someone else can pick up from here
A big point of my comment earlier was that making a project increasingly LLM generated makes it harder for someone to pick up as quickly. A huge amount of complexity can be added insanely fast. In this rsync example, the entire testing system was changed overnight (while generating issues in the process). The projects become harder to work on in general
EDIT: also to add, this still has the issues of not knowing where the un-copyleftable code lies and/or having to rework large portions of the project are if you want to keep that
actually the dev does owe the community something. I’m sure the dev has enjoyed many fruits of the labor they put into rsync, but most of all are clout and opportunities.
the dev was able to access high profile high paying jobs because of the success of rsync. they were able to become well known enough in the community to speak to large groups about their project and other topics as well. they were given a platform to voice their opinion and rally support behind topics or other projects.
the dev benefited by the good will of the community.
now, the community that the dev worked with, used, to attain the position they currently hold is complaining that something is wrong. the project is broken. the dev has ignored the problems and continues to use the tool causing all the problems.
no. the dev owes us an explanation at the very least.
why are they leveraging a flawed tool to maintain such an important and integral solution for the entire world?
why do they ignore the complaints from the community?
are they willing to hand over development to a new dev or group that will maintain it properly?
No, they don’t. You’re acting like all those benefits you listed are payment or compensation for the work they did. If those serve as compensation, they don’t create a forward obligation. The paycheck you get at work doesn’t entitle your employer to your continued labor.
The community isn’t owed shit for the guy giving them something useful that may have looked good on his resume. It’s entitled as fuck to think you’re owed something because someone built something you found valuable enough that someone else wanted to hire them.
To answer your questions:
because it’s their project and they thought it was the right tool for the job. What answer were you expecting?
because the community isn’t working on the project.
probably not.
Seriously. Demanding someone give up control of their personal project because it’s too important for them to run as they see fit, but not important enough to support or help maintain.
Fork it and maintain it yourself. Literally nothing is stopping you. You’re just as equipped as he is, other than not being the inventor of the underlying technology.
Completely unjustifiable to complain about something FREE AND OPEN SOURCE
The developer owes nothing to anyone and is CERTAINLY not owed backlash for using the tools available to try and continue to help others
This kind of reaction is how to ensure the death of FOSS projects. It’s bullying, it’s insensitive, and worst of all it helps no one.
Open source software comes as-is and without warranty but that doesn’t mean you can’t criticize what people are doing in this space… In fact i’d argue it is integral to it.
“Absolutely no warranty” means you can’t be taken to court if your product is bad, it does not mean “immune to criticism”.
That framing is missing a lot. Open source software is way more than about using the code. For me, it is not the bugs and quality that concern me most about things like this (though I do have concerns with that too). It’s about the broader issues with LLMs in terms of cooperate power, environmental impact, etc. Calling it out is less about any one project and more about stopping the whole open source ecosystem from spiraling into an LLM-dependent mess. LLMs themselves can easily become the death of FOSS in a broader sense
LLMs flip the power dynamics of development on their head. For starters, the outputs are likely no longer copyrightable in many jurisdictions, which undermines copyleft licenses (rsync is under GPL for example).
The kind of code that LLMs generate also tend to add complexity rather fast where it becomes more and more difficult for any human to understand it. Becoming dependent on LLMs makes development more of a question of computing power rather than effort. Companies will be able to spend more than you. FOSS will not be able to compete nearly as well. It’s also an inherent dependency on big tech companies who will be happy to exploit that the second they can or cut you off it you start to hit their bottom line. Software cannot be free in terms of freedom if modifying it in a reasonable amount of time starts to almost require a tool controlled by someone else
Using “Open Source” (which has somehow become “public weights” to most) / local LLMs are hardly freedom from this either given that they will always be behind given the massive financial costs to make models, unlike traditional software. If you find any advantage or way to reduce resource usage to make a better model, the bigger tech companies will just quickly scale that up far bigger than you can and meet or exceed what you have. It still just as well makes your ability to modify software dependent on the hardware you have. How free is open source software if it becomes increasingly difficult to modify without an expensive GPU?
I recommend demonstrating your values with helpful actions like donating to FOSS projects, forking them, etc
The lack of control and sustainability you’re articulating represents one side of the basic nature of FOSS.
There are no shareholders.
The other side of it is that it’s open source - someone else can pick up from here and do it their way and there’s nothing stopping them or you.
There’s no good reason to go after the developer.
I have worked on open source projects. I cannot fork sheer number of projects going towards LLMs alone. This is a losing proposition. Open source is not an individualistic action. This is a collective action, and we need developers of open source to live the values of open source
A big point of my comment earlier was that making a project increasingly LLM generated makes it harder for someone to pick up as quickly. A huge amount of complexity can be added insanely fast. In this rsync example, the entire testing system was changed overnight (while generating issues in the process). The projects become harder to work on in general
EDIT: also to add, this still has the issues of not knowing where the un-copyleftable code lies and/or having to rework large portions of the project are if you want to keep that
deleted by creator
actually the dev does owe the community something. I’m sure the dev has enjoyed many fruits of the labor they put into rsync, but most of all are clout and opportunities.
the dev was able to access high profile high paying jobs because of the success of rsync. they were able to become well known enough in the community to speak to large groups about their project and other topics as well. they were given a platform to voice their opinion and rally support behind topics or other projects.
the dev benefited by the good will of the community.
now, the community that the dev worked with, used, to attain the position they currently hold is complaining that something is wrong. the project is broken. the dev has ignored the problems and continues to use the tool causing all the problems.
no. the dev owes us an explanation at the very least.
No, they don’t. You’re acting like all those benefits you listed are payment or compensation for the work they did. If those serve as compensation, they don’t create a forward obligation. The paycheck you get at work doesn’t entitle your employer to your continued labor.
The community isn’t owed shit for the guy giving them something useful that may have looked good on his resume. It’s entitled as fuck to think you’re owed something because someone built something you found valuable enough that someone else wanted to hire them.
To answer your questions:
Seriously. Demanding someone give up control of their personal project because it’s too important for them to run as they see fit, but not important enough to support or help maintain.
Fork it and maintain it yourself. Literally nothing is stopping you. You’re just as equipped as he is, other than not being the inventor of the underlying technology.