Whenever AI is mentioned lots of people in the Linux space immediately react negatively. Creators like TheLinuxExperiment on YouTube always feel the need to add a disclaimer that “some people think AI is problematic” or something along those lines if an AI topic is discussed. I get that AI has many problems but at the same time the potential it has is immense, especially as an assistant on personal computers (just look at what “Apple Intelligence” seems to be capable of.) Gnome and other desktops need to start working on integrating FOSS AI models so that we don’t become obsolete. Using an AI-less desktop may be akin to hand copying books after the printing press revolution. If you think of specific problems it is better to point them out and try think of solutions, not reject the technology as a whole.

TLDR: A lot of ludite sentiments around AI in Linux community.

  • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    6 months ago

    Reminder that we don’t even have AI yet, just learning machine models, which are not the same thing despite wide misuse of the term AI.

    • knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      6 months ago

      Have you mentioned that in gaming forums aswell when they talked about AI?

      AI is a broad term and can mean many different things, it does not need to mean ‘true’ AI

    • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s just nitpicking. Everyone here knows what we mean by AI. Yes it refers to LLMs.

      Reminds me of Richard Stallman always interjecting to say “actually its gnu/Linux or as I like to say gnu plus Linux”…

      Well no Mr Stallman its actually gnu + Linux + Wayland + systemd + chromium and whatever other software you have installed, are you happy now??

      • Inevitable Waffles [Ohio]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        6 months ago

        As someone who frequently interacts with the tech illiterate, no they don’t. This sudden rush to put weighed text hallucination tables into everything isn’t that helpful. The hype feels like self driving cars or 3D TVs for those of us old enough to remember that. The potential for damage is much higher than either of those two preceding fads and cars actually killed poeple. I think many of us are expressing a healthy level of skepticism toward the people who need to sell us the next big thing and it is absolutely warranted.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s exactly like self driving everyone is like this is the time we are going to get AGI. But it well be like everything else overhyped and under deliver. Sure it well have its uses companies well replace people with it and they enshitificstion well continue.

        • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          The potential for damage is much higher

          Doubt it. Maybe Microsoft can fuck it up somehow but the tech is here to stay and will do massive good.

          • Inevitable Waffles [Ohio]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            6 months ago

            You can doubt all you like but we keep seeing the training data leaking out with passwords and personal information. This problem won’t be solved by the people who created it since they don’t care and fundamentally the technology will always show that lack of care. FOSS ones may do better in this regard but they are still datasets without context. Thats the crux of the issue. The program or LLM has no context for what it says. That’s why you get these nonsensical responses telling people that killing themselves is a valid treatment for a toothache. Intelligence is understanding. The “AI” or LLM or, as I like to call them, glorified predictive textbars, doesn’t understand the words it is stringing together and most people don’t know that due to flowery marketing language and hype. The threat is real.

            • Auli@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              6 months ago

              Not to mention the hulucinations. What a great marketing term for it’s fucking wrong.

              • Inevitable Waffles [Ohio]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                They act like its the computer daydreaming. No, its wrong. The machine that is supposed to provide me correct information. It didn’t it. These marketing wizards are selling snake oil in such a lovely bottle these days.

      • ElectricMachman@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        6 months ago

        So when we actually do have AI, what are we supposed to call it? The current use of the term “AI” is too ambiguous to be of any use.

        • jacobc436@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          6 months ago

          Nothing was ever wrong with calling them “virtual assistants” - at least with them you’re conditioned to have a low bar of expectations. So if it performs past expectations, you’ll be excited, lol.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          6 months ago

          Honestly what we have now is AI. As in it is not intelligent just trys to mimic it.

          Digital Intelegence if we ever achive it would be a more accurate name.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            6 months ago

            Look, the naming ship has sailed and sunk somewhere in the middle of the ocean. I think it’s time to accept that “AI” just means “generative model” and what we would have called “AI” is now more narrowly “AGI”.

            People call videogame enemies “AI”, too, and it’s not the end of the world, it’s just imprecise.

          • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            This is a bit philosophical but who is to say that mimicking intelligence with advanced math is not intelligence. LLMs can perform various thinking tasks better than humans we consider intelligent.

        • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          What AI means will change, what it refers to will change. Currently, the LLMs and other technologies are referred to as AI, like you say. In five years time we will have made huge leaps. Likely, this will result in technology also called AI.

          In a similar vein, hover boards are still known as exactly that - like in films. Whereas the “real” hover board that exists has wheels. We didn’t stop calling the other ones hover boards, and if we ever get real ones they will likely also be called hoverboards.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 months ago

            Whereas the “real” hover board that exists has wheels.

            Hovercraft have existed for decades and actually hover which makes everyone just accepting Hoverboards as wheeled infuriating.

      • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        To be 🤓 really really nitpicky, and i’m writing this because I find it interesting, not an attack or whatever. A tongue in cheek AcHtUaLlY 🤓

        GNU/Linux is the “whole operating system”, and everything else is extra. The usefulness of an operating system without applications is debatable but they 🤓 technically aren’t required to complete the definition of an operating system.

        But this is also basically the debate of Linux vs GNU/Linux vs also needing applications to make a useful operating system.

        Quoting wiki summary,

        In its original meaning, and one still common in hardware engineering, the operating system is a basic set of functions to control the hardware and manage things like task scheduling and system calls. In modern terminology used by software developers, the collection of these functions is usually referred to as a kernel, while an ‘operating system’ is expected to have a more extensive set of programmes. The GNU project maintains two kernels itself, allowing the creation of pure GNU operating systems, but the GNU toolchain is also used with non-GNU kernels. Due to the two different definitions of the term ‘operating system’, there is an ongoing debate concerning the naming of distributions of GNU packages with a non-GNU kernel.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU?wprov=sfti1#GNU_as_an_operating_system

        • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Don’t tell me Linux mint would still be Linux mint without the a desktop environment like Cinnamon. An os is the collection of all the software not just the low level code.

          • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Well that’s the debate! Is it “GNU/Linux Mint”? What about the desktop environment, “GNU/Linux Mint Cinnamon”?

            ed.

            Don’t tell me …

            Absolutely not telling you - just reiterating the ongoing debate

      • Soviet Pigeon@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Linux doesnt need GNU components at all to be a functional operating system. And you wouldnt see any difference if your http server works on GNU/Linux or Linux without GNU.

        On the other hand there is difference between an AI and LLM. The difference is signifacant enough to distinguish. You may mean LLMs if you talk about AI, but tbh I though you didnt. Because many people dont.

        • davel@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Linux doesnt need GNU components at all to be a functional operating system.

          Indeed: look no further than Alpine Linux.

          Alpine Linux is a Linux distribution designed to be small, simple, and secure. It uses musl, BusyBox, and OpenRC instead of the more commonly used glibc, GNU Core Utilities, and systemd. This makes Alpine one of few Linux distributions not to be based on the GNU Core Utilities.

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      But ml is a type of ai. Just because the word makes you think of androids and skynet doesn’t mean that’s the only thing that can be called so. Personally never understood this attempt at limiting the word to that now while ai has been used for lesser computer intelligences for a long time.

        • FatCat@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Its an interesting discussion. But I disagree you have a clear cut fact.

          Just because it’s a computer writing things with math why do you say it is not intelligence. It would be helpful if you could be more detailed here.

        • NoiseColor@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well not at all. What a word means is not defined by what you might think. When the majority starts to use a word for something and that sticks, it can be adopted. That happens all the time and I have read articles about it many times. Even for our current predicament. Language is evolving. Meanings change. And yes ai today includes what is technically machine learning. Sorry friend, that’s how it works. Sure you can be the grumpy drunk at a bar complaining that this is not strictly ai by some definition while the rest of the world rolls their eyes and proceeds to more meaningful debates.

          • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Words have meaning and, sure, they can be abused and change meaning over time but let’s be real here: AI is a hype term with no basis on reality. We do not have AI, we aren’t even all that close. You can make all the ad hominem comments you want but at the end of the day, the terminology comes from ignorant figureheads hyping shit up for profit (at great environmental cost too, LLM aka “AI” takes up a lot of power while yielding questionable results).

            Kinda sounds like you bought into the hype, friend.

            • NoiseColor@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              You missed the point again, oh dear! Let me try again in simpler terms : you yourself dont define words, how they are used in the public does. So if the world calls it ai, then the word will mean what everybody means when they use it.

              This is how the words come to be, evolve and are at the end put in the dictionary. Nobody cares what you think. Ai today includes ML. Get over it.

              Nice try with deflection attempts, but I really don’t care about them, I’m only here to teach you where words come from and to tell you, the article is written about you.

              Also that I’m out of time for this. Bye.