Post by @usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml

2026-10-16 00:09 UTC

The open source software movement was very much founded on the idea of being concerned about what kinds of tools we use as a society. Software that’s “just a tool” can locks you down and out of what you can do with it. Same argument can just as well be made that people were “shying away from using new and interesting tools” by running free software instead of Microsoft’s new priority stuff that locks you in AI similarly gives massive control to a handful of companies. They have already used that leverage to intentionally sandbag tasks without telling you, when they think it’s against their economic interests (model distillation and AI research). Is it not possible to imagine that goes further, they would use that leverage to slip in backdoor, not report classes of bugs, etc.?

Replies (4)

@yogthos@lemmy.ml 2026-10-16 01:28

Do explain how open models like Qwen that you can run locally give massive control to handful of companies. In fact, what seems obvious is that using and improving these models is precisely what takes control away from these companies. People who started the free software movement didn’t cry like a bunch children about how much they hated software. They had the brains to understand the problem wasn’t the software itself, but rather who controls it. So, they went out and built open versions of the software that weren’t corporate owned. And try guess what tools they used initially to do that since open software didn’t exist yet. Your mind is about to be blown.

Open ##5054565
@aksdb@lemmy.world 2026-10-16 04:46

These risks are not different from before and still open source has the advantage of being open to anyone and any agent. Kernel modules written by US employees with unknown ties to US intelligence was just as much at risk for containing a backdoor as if written by an agent using an LLM with US intelligence ties. And in both cases intelligence actors or security researchers from around the world can review it all and try to spot backdoors. So can agents with different LLMs behind them. It would be an issue if there was only one state sanctioned LLM available, but as long as there is world wide competition in training LLMs, opensource will be “reviewed” with competing interests in “mind”.

Open ##5056311
@SingularEye@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-10-16 05:01

Torvalds has never been a Free Software guy. Open source is a convenience to him. Why should he allow blobs in the kernel otherwise? They do the job and arguably don’t violate the GPL. That’s all he’s ever been concerned with.

Open ##5056408
@Dirk@lemmy.ml 2026-10-16 09:33

Software that’s “just a tool” can lock you down and out of what you can do with it. AI is not “just a tool”. It is highly unethical. It harms the environment, it harms actual developers, it introduces all sorts of legal issues where copyright is only one of them, it locks you in to a vendor, it makes you dependent of giant tech companies that steal your data and want to monetize your work. Linus seems to ignore that or does not care about it.

Open ##5059274