Hi Phong :)
sex 29 mai 2026 às 11:21:10 (1780064470), [email protected] enviou:
> Hi André,
>
> On 2026-05-28 at 18:12-03:00, André Batista wrote:
> > It was the company that developed, trained and decided to offer
> > this as a service WITHOUT WARNING THAT WHAT THEY PROVIDE
> > CANNOT BE USED FREELY, so they are the ones primarily responsible
> > for the infringements they induce others to cause.
>
> Emphasis mine, and that is not the reality. In the terms of use
> of Copilot (...)
>
> Let's take another example, if C gives us a car P from manufacturer S,
> while insisting that it doesn't happen ever despite S saying
> P fails to brake 1% of the time, would you trust C and ride P around?
> What would any court thinks if you hit someone with P
> and blame C's assurance? Of course, it would be a different scenario
> if C withheld the car's model.
>
So, as I understand it, you are implying that in this situation, if
manufacturer S advertises selfdriving car model P as the solution to
car accidents as they remove the human error factor ("the safest car
ever sold, you must buy it now!") and then sells a billion cars which
would cause ten million of accidents throughout the world every 3
months they could avoid any liability by virtue of inserting a clause
in their contracts saying "we can't promise that car model P won't go
berserk, run accross children on streets, run off clifs or
selfexplode"? And that if I had bought one of these cars I would
become liable for these accidents and even after selling it to you
I'd remain liable in their place?
I find this situation highly unlikely, to say the least. Such
company would have to call and pay back every car they sold and
compensate people individually and collectively for the damages
they've caused.
Having a fine print on terms of use does not equal warning users.
They are selling this to the world as a safe tech that may be used
freely to accomplish almost all - and according to them soon enough
all - intellectual tasks. They are not selling it as digital parrot,
nor as a copy machine and neither as something that massively
violates the rights of others.
> On 2026-05-28 at 18:12-03:00, André Batista wrote:
> > qui 28 mai 2026 às 17:54:14 (1780001654), Nguyễn Gia Phong enviou:
> > > There is practically zero inclusion of LLM output in Guix codebase.
> > > Attempts to introduce legal, technical, and moral risks, etc.
> > > to the project should preach for acceptance, not the other way around.
> >
> > Acceptance? Not sure if I understood this last sentence.
>
> If big tech boosters want to change to status quo and incorporate
> LLM outputs along with their risks into free software projects,
> they should present their evidence and do the convincing.
>
I object to singling out and name calling users of these services.
Also, my idea was just that: leave a narrow opening through which
people can present their evidence and try to convince the rest that
this tech has some usefulness and that the risks can be mitigated.
> I am disappointed that the discussion here treats LLMs as inevitable
> and caters to their users instead of securing our software freedom.
> If one day all courts worldwide rule that all LLM outputs
> are under the public domain, then it's not too late for another GCD
> reverting the their ban anyway.
>
I'm not so sure about this. Even though Ludo claims this GCD is only
about the "Detailed Design", the motivation section shows a great
deal of concerns over this tech that goes way beyond copyright. So
say the courts decide that LLM outputs are public domain, so what?
Will we then ignore all other concerns and jump the fascist, climate
denialist, human craft enemies bandwagon as if none was the matter?
Wouldn't that be a bit hypocritical? We cater to those concerns to
support us when convenient, but drop them once they become obstacles?
Also, what does it mean to secure our software freedom? To me it
means having user rights recognized by law, constitutions and human
rights treatises. It means abolishing intellectual property rights
over source code. It means making it unlawful to furnish binary
blobs without source code and documentation. It means making it
unlawful to provide hardware without publishing its datasheets and
designs. It means having public oversight over any SaaSS offered
to the public.
In order to get there, we'll need massive popular support and this
support will not be gained by secluding ourselves on a free software
island of novena laptops. It will not be gained by calling people
"useds". It will not be gained by shutting people out unless they
mirror us in all ways of behaving and thinking.
Cheers!
