@zer0unplanned@friendica.rogueproject.org
Post #3883775
2026-07-16 13:08 UTC
@oatmeal@kolektiva.social @doctormo@floss.social Your concerns about the AI industry's ethics data scraping, labor exploitation, and corporate overreach, yo that's valid and widely shared, but they do not justify banning AI tools within the Linux kernel project. Linus Torvalds is right because the kernel’s policy explicitly separates tool usage from industry practices: it mandates human accountability for every line of code (via the Assisted-by tag and DCO sign-off) while refusing to let external moral disputes over AI training data dictate internal engineering workflows. The solution to unethical AI practices is to demand regulatory reform and support ethical AI alternatives, not to handicap kernel developers by banning tools that improve security and productivity. Open source has always thrived by adopting useful technology while maintaining strict human oversight; abandoning that pragmatism would harm the project without fixing the broader industry’s problems.
Replies (2)
-
@oatmeal@kolektiva.social 2026-07-16 20:55
@zer0unplanned apropos of, checkout https://ai-law-tracker.com/ (USA) @doctormo@floss.social #ai #llm
-
@oatmeal@kolektiva.social 2026-07-16 13:36
@zer0unplanned one thing I totally agree is that we want regulation and legal guardrails. We as a collective need to make the decisions about what kinds of automation we actually want. We’re not even close to having this conversation at the moment and that’s a problem. At the moment the value of “ai” related technologies floats up rather than back to the people whose work was extracted. But that’s another problem. Regardless, ethics and self-regulation is BS.