Post #2068017

2026-04-30 12:58 UTC

I reckon this argument would be a whole lot more convincing if you could go more in-depth into FOSS genAI. Most of the genAI use cases I see around the internet are centered on corporate AI and spreading more awareness on how to move away from corporations (while also reducing environmental harm) would go a long way. That's beside my personal dislike for AI generated content, which, as you said, is subjective. I'm open to genAI usage where it actually benefits humanity as a whole more than it does harm. Addition: while copyright and IP are obviously capitalist bullshit, it is still nice to be able to give credit to artists. Or at least obtain consent before using their works for training. Does FOSS genAI take this point into account?

Replies (2)

@mirshafie@europe.pub 2026-05-02 05:26

I think DeepSeek has proven (and continues to prove) that you don't need incredibly power-hungry models to get good results. Part of the inefficiency with the current models is likely just American Logic (TM) where bigger is better and high operating costs are a way to attract *more* capital, not less.

Open ##2068037
@MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-04-30 13:26

Great feedback. I edited the second section to add some info about FOSS AI. How it uses less energy and is also user configurable. Most FOSS AI models I know of doesn't take into account consent or crediting. I don't see why one couldn't though. Should they have to? No, but I can see why it would be nice to at least credit the people who contributed with their art, at least if they're known.

Open ##2068038