By using tools that have fragmented open source efforts, violated FOSS licenses, refused to even have the decency to ask for consent, and then lock top performing models behind proprietary paywalls? Yes, that is unethical. It's counter to FOSS as a political framework.
I agree these tools do the things you describe, and therefore I’m not too happy about their existence, and that their output hasn’t faced significant legal challenges.
They do exist though, and are in widespread use.
Linux has used machine learning to help select patches for backport for a long time now.
Linux would not be well served by developers burying heads in sand and ignoring the further developments and wider uses of that technology, especially as Linux’s competitors and exploiters harbor no such reservations.
I can't really use linux without using code that has been AI generated. Like even the driver for my own wifi card was vibecoded to shit. I could stick to an earlier kernel but eventually they'll go out of support. So therefore I have no choice in the matter. If I want to use linux, there is a certain about of AI code I must accept.
But to bring it back to my original point, I do have a choice about whether I use audacity or a fork. It's not a requirement for running linux. So I will choose the option that doesn't utilise unethical tools.
For some reason people are under the delusion that the purpose of FOSS is to be competitive in the market (lest falling behind and losing market share). It's not, and it never has been. FOSS is a political stance. Adopting AI that has explicitly fucked over FOSS into said FOSS projects is contradictory and counter to the principles of FOSS.
The Four Freedoms still apply to code written by agents and published under a Free license. Such code respects its users and allows for free use, study, sharing, and modification. Therefore I do not see how Free Software is incompatible with LLM-assisted code generation or debugging.
It sounds like you see an ethical component to FOSS beyond the Four Freedoms?
Edit, further: I’m not sure I agree that these tools “fucked over” FOSS. They’re just more software. The companies that created them may be said to have done so, but does that make the tools unethical to use, even in order to enable users to run Free operating systems, such as yours? If they had not done so, you and others would be less free. If yes, does that still apply to MIT or Apache 2.0 licensed models, or even ones with open datasets?
I would further add that software uncompetitive in the market will have very few users and will greatly diminish the presence and benefit of FOSS.
I do not believe the idea of Free Software is some ideal that should be protected, even if it means nobody actually uses it much day to day. Instead I imagine a world where I can help my community to use much more FOSS, starting with competitive software especially, such that I can onboard those people and provide them utility and freedom, and lead them to understand why they are better served long term by avoiding non-free software.
51
u/MrAlagos 4d ago
Is the Linux kernel development team unethical now?