GrapheneOS imposes a set of restrictions on how generative AI can be used in our project and community. It isn't forbidden but rather we imposed rules based on actual issues.
Posts made in our forum, chat rooms, issue tracker and the rest of our project must be written by humans. There's an exception from this rule for translation and accessibility features. That means commit messages, pull request messages, bug reports and feature requests are expected to be written by humans, not a machine.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
We largely disallow making posts entirely based on AI model output. For example, we get a lot of forum threads from people with concerns based on AI model output and will typically provide a quick answer followed by locking the thread and then eventually removing it.
It isn't permitted to submit pull requests or issue reports created by an AI model without fully understanding it. It's fully allowed to file issues found by an AI model if there's a human who understands it and writes the report.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
We do not want issue reports entirely generated by an AI model or which were written by a human and passed through an AI model to provide analysis. It's usually incredibly inaccurate and we would greatly prefer the user's explanation of what's wrong. We want a description of what happened, a crash traceback if one is available and optionally a subset of logs emailed to logs@grapheneos.org if people are comfortable doing that after triggering the crash or another issue. We sometimes request it.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
It can sometimes be useful to analyze an issue with an AI model but it usually isn't. It also definitely isn't useful to do it with a free or cheap model available without either paying for it or running it on very expensive hardware. In general, users do not have access to anything useful to analyze it. We don't want people to keep converting their issue reports into slop. We want what a user pasted into the AI model interface rather than what an AI model produced as output from that.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
Frontier models are very good at finding bugs but it requires an experienced developer to babysit it and extract the useful portion of the output. Important bugs are often found but mixed in with a bunch of low quality output. The details on the issue and especially proposals to fix it are often wrong. It's still very useful and finds many real issues. The volume of real vulnerabilities being found this way in Linux, Chromium, Firefox, Postfix and countless other projects is quite scary.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
It isn't a good idea for people to point a model at an open source project and then start submitting bug reports to it. People need to be able to confirm the issues themselves with relatively high confidence before reporting it. It's okay to make some mistakes but it should not be the majority of what's reported. We do want people to report these kinds of security bugs to us but the signal to noise ratio is far too low right now. Even frontier models spew out contrived nonsense and fabrications.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
We want people to report very serious Android Open Source Project security bugs to us but we can't handle a lot of minor issues. We don't generally need Chromium security bugs reported to us because they handle those far more quickly and have a far better system for releasing it. Linux kernel security bug reports are useful if they refused to fix it (arm64 kASLR) or it didn't get backported to the LTS. GKI LTS being behind the LTS is a separate problem we'll be addressing ourselves again soon.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
We have high standards for code being merged into GrapheneOS, especially for code in critically important parts of the project. Most of the changes made to the OS are to critically important parts of the code. It takes a long time to get features to meet our standards. There's usually a lot of back and forth review with many improvements requirements for anything significant. External contributors shouldn't try to take on major features without talking to us and planning that out with us first.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
Going from having a working implementation of a feature to code we can merge often takes a long time. It can take months or even more than a year. It doesn't always work out. Sometimes we decide a feature ended up being too invasive or risky for other reasons and don't want to include it. We'll often do rewrites. Contributors need a full understanding of what they've submitted and need to be prepared to make substantial changes including fully rewriting it multiple times. AI slop isn't accepted.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
We don't forbid using AI models for writing code but pull requests largely created that way will typically be rejected or skipped due to not meeting our requirements. It needs to be well written code which appears to be regular code written by a human regardless of the level of AI assistance involved in making it. It should not look like AI generated code. We do want to know if AI models are being used and how they're being used rather than people using it but not telling us they're using it.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
GrapheneOS is based on projects heavily using AI including the Linux kernel. Cellebrite, NSO and other exploit developers are using it to exploit these projects. They currently have a major advantage thanks to AI which will likely be turned into a major disadvantage over the long term. It's getting a huge backlog of bugs fixed and creating enormous pressure to make systemic improvements.
Here's what Debian adopted, which is a similar idea but much more permissive:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002#texte
www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002#texteReplying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
There are currently many widely shared threads directing hate towards us with major misrepresentations about what we've said in done.
A large number of people are using it as an opportunity to promote using operating systems which are the direct opposite of hardened and are much more heavily using AI models including for a lot of code generation.
LineageOS is certainly using it. CalyxOS, /e/ and iodéOS are based on it. CalyxOS is developed by LineageOS core developers.
https://github.com/LineageOS/charter/blob/main/ai-coding-assistants.md
github.com/LineageOS/charter/blob/main/ai-coding-assistants.md
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS
AI companies control what their bots do right? What if they tried to subtly place a vulnerability into graphene that your developers become too deskilled to notice? How do you know what is or isn't slop at that point? (We've seen nefarious PRs be accepted into the Linux kernel before AI, so humans cannot always be trusted to catch these types of vulnerabilities). I imagine the trust placed by the developers into these models only make this problem more of an issue.
- Who is the point of trust verifying slop from non-slop?
- Do you have extra security in place to test regressions imposed by AI models (that isn't an AI model itself)?
- What about the impending licencing issues? What if governments try to attack Graphene over illegally licenced code that was included from an AI model?
I think this is a bigger issue that needs more time to bake.
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS Ultimately, and EVEN if you want, it is not theoretically possible to prevent someone from disguising code generated by AI in ways that you would know it's written by AI, if someone wants to make you believe it's human authored it will. You will not be able to prove otherwise, there are clues and watermarking systems from major LLM providers but you can easily strip those. And even human-to-LLM communication, with sufficient guidance you can easily make an LLM generate ouput no human will ever doubt is AI generated, and with expert domain knowledge too. It's possible to do it, alot of people don't know how that's why it's easy to filter out vibe coded contributions from lower skilled engineering folks, but it's possible and it's not that difficult. Let's be serious, Graphene OS devs arent getting deskilled, Graphene OS isnt a vibe coded project. The risks of vulnerabilities being subtly introduced is an ongoing risk, AI or not, there's no way to prevent it, and no human will resist it all. The key is probably building durable trust in the community, but even then someone could be paid or corrupted to subtly introduce something in, it's just a possibility. But Graphene OS is designed in such a way also that there are areas of the code that is more sensitive than others, probably simplifying review of sensitive code.
Replying to @laura_ge@eldritch.cafe
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS Trying to ban AI in software is kinda pointless, it's impossible to actually enforce. It's easy to reject vibe coders though. But maybe at some point the capability of disguising as a real domain expert human will become even more accessible? At which point your policy is not really effective at all. Also all major mainstream projects which we all use and need already contain AI generated code. And for above cited reasons, it may not be possible to tell which part is AI generated and which is not. If you want to meaningfully ban AI that means you're gonna ban ALOT of major software, even as dependencies of your own. Forking all software pre-coding AI and going from there is really too much resources to ask for, especially to reimplement all the security fixes and future feature all yourself. If we want to ship more than chemically AI pure toy projects, we are kinda forced to tolerate AI because, it's not possible to detect it's use 100%, we don't have the resources from the PoV of anti-AI engineering people to maintain the world without AI use of their current maintainers. (anti-AI people are generally not millionaires/billionaires, quite the contrary).
Replying to @laura_ge@eldritch.cafe
@laura_ge @GrapheneOS Hello Laurage, and thanks for the response!
I think while not completely possible to detect all AI, I think the developers using it themselves in code creation brings up a bigger concern:
- The more one is exposed to AI generated code, the more that code becomes normalized within the project and the less likely you are to detect it in others.
- AI code removes the creative process of new novel solutions that might otherwise fix many issues.
- As far as I am aware, deskilling from AI happens quite quickly and its without ones own knowledge of it happening. I know the current developers are competent, but what's to say they will be long term? And what does that invite when we offload so much knowledge to the machine?
- I think AI invites too many edge cases that cause people to slip and invite the AI more and more until they are effectively not apart of the project themselves. Thinking you are immune to this problem only makes you more susceptible. AI is like a box of sirens.
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS I do agree it's awful overall however if you use it at least to understand what this technology is even about and how it works I do believe it also makes you better at understanding its patterns and recognizing AI-generated output or code and also understanding the why of its gaps and inaccuracies come from it's possible to identify them as a human and better understand them. For example, understanding that AI models are probabilist systems that don't always give the same answer to an identical input, they are inherently random, that context management and attention systems optimization generates inaccuracies because the model is optimized to "forget" its own working data to optimize memory bandwidth use. It's still helpful to study the machine learning concepts behind it to know exactly what to expect from those tools when they are forced on you and why, and also to criticize it and be taken seriously because you actually know what you're talking about. AIgen is certainly like a casino machine, it's addictive and the models are actively trained to make you believe they are useful by being overly confident etc. though they now really can be useful and do real work it's not just a "fluke" it would be dishonest to affirm that. I do agree it has detrimental effects on one's mental health, just like addictive mainstream social networks are and many things in tech, that's why I think tech is dead in many ways, even pre-AI to be frank. All it does to the masses is mass surveillance and control, and even mass manipulation now even leading to turning election results over.
Replying to @laura_ge@eldritch.cafe
@laura_ge @GrapheneOS Hello again,
Sorry your post is a little difficult for me to read, I will repeat your question to make sure I am not misunderstanding you.
> You say more AI generated code helps you detect it more often:
I am unable to find the study so I cannot claim it to be false definitively, but I will disagree with the following reasons:
- For many projects, AI code sticks out like a sore thumb due to its weird tendencies and behaviors. If those tendencies become ingrained in the project, how would you determine AI from not?
- Since these are indeed probabilistic models, you will notice they code like a stack overflow post. It doesn't always "correctly" fit into the project the way one might expect. It gives this weird off feeling, however, that relies on the project having good coding standards to begin with. Something that can be eroded by continuous use of AI.
Otherwise, I agree with your post. AI is very much like a slot machine and I don't know what long term use looks like. This is why I am concerned that a project like Graphene is so quickly adopting it. I just don't think we have enough proof or data to show its a healthy or productive thing to include in a project intended to be this secure.
If I disregard the ethics concerns, I could give Graphene a pass for using AI to exclusively pen-test their platform (no code generation), but I think allowing any code-gen is my real big concern here.
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS It matters that Graphene OS isnt a vibe coded project, why does it matter if Graphene OS has marginal AI use if the software its based on already has major AI use in its recent months anyway? Graphene OS wont be able replace those dependencies. Graphene OS depends on Android AOSP, on Chromium, on Linux, by your logic Graphene OS should just close doors right now. Graphene OS doesnt function without the engineering resources of bigtech Google and all companies paying devs to contribute to Linux, and all those arent anti-AI and use AI in generous amounts, though for quality and reliability reasons they also arent vibe coded projects because every decent engineer knows it's not a way to make software for public consumption that works properly. It can work for some tech tools or backend software but even then it's meh. It certainly wont look good if you arent a team of sufficiently qualified engineering folks to begin with.
To stop AI, using or not in our very little privacy/free software projects wont do much, most companies etc. who have billions are already funding them all in, if we want to stop it, we must go and plug off the machines training the next models so they can't keep on with it. It's up to the people who live near enough to the places that train frontier models to do so, unfortunately where I live there are no frontier training datacenters so we can't locally do demonstrations or really oppose it meaningfully.
Replying to @laura_ge@eldritch.cafe
@laura_ge @GrapheneOS Hello again v2 lol,
I think that this is a valid concern and is something I am worried about too!
However, it is unfair to say that Graphene should contribute to the problem themselves just because everyone else is doing it. I think that while many dependencies are tainted, Graphene could still carefully manage it's own source.
We can bring up concerns with its dependencies's authors another time, however, we cannot begin without someone first taking a stance.
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @laura_ge @GrapheneOS
Taking a stance in front of an avalanche is a really noble idea!
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @laura_ge Linux, AOSP, Chromium and the many projects those use are not simply dependencies. That's the operating system we're building on. It has extensive use of AI regardless of what we do. Linux is also being quite lax about how it's used.
We're working on privacy and security where finding holes to break through the defenses is a key part of it. These AI models are extremely good at doing it and are heavily shifting the advantage to attackers unless that's countered.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@corigan01 @laura_ge It isn't important because everyone else is using it but rather because corporations and governments wanting to break into people's devices are heavily using it. It is our job to defend against them. People do not seem to realize how easy it's getting for attackers to the point you can go grab exploits on GitHub and take over non-GrapheneOS Android devices. It can get that way for us too if we don't stay on top of things despite how they're degrading.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @laura_ge Hello Graphene org, and thanks for taking the time to respond to me!
(NOTE: Sorry its getting a little late so my brain is a fried, but I will do my best lol.)
I understand the pressure is huge for a project like Graphene, and I too am worried about the current state of software security. Honestly, nothing could've prepared any FOSS project for this AI catastrophe. (I use Graphene myself and had trusted it to keep me safe, seriously thank you).
However, I also cannot dismiss what I've seen occur in other beloved FOSS projects, and I see this same pattern repeat over and over; its a heart breaking cycle of losing the software I once trusted. I think this is why many people on fedi get so upset when discussing AI, we've gone through this before and know whats on the other side.
I think overall I see the following things happen when projects start accepting AI:
- AI attracts the wrong crowd of developers.
- AI degrades standards over time.
- AI burns out talented contributors.
- AI leaves the project a shell of its previous state.
AI has destroyed our freedom, safety, and community. The companies festering these models have little incentive to create what is simply a "tool." These devices are cognitive hazards because they play with the very same addictive tendencies that keep people gambling, drinking, or doing drugs.
LLMs are optimized to scare people into thinking that without their magic new "tool", you will be left behind. They hook you, sing their siren song, and after all is done you're left without the very skills that made you great in the first place. You tell yourself you need to use the AI just to do the things you've confidently done for years. Its the same cycle we've all known before.
I don't believe people are upset about the pen-testing aspect of the AI use here. I think for security critical projects, one should use similar devices to those used by adversaries.
However, I think most of us are primarily concerned that allowing code contributions to be assisted with AI is ultimately harmful.
I think that if you only used AI in a very narrow way, effectively only to find bugs (like a fuzzer would) that is acceptable. We don't want to see AI replace fuzzing or other hand crafted tooling, but instead to serve as an aid to existing infrastructure due to the reasons you described.
Please, at least consider what I've said and invite more (healthy) discussion about AIs involvement before making your final choice.
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS @laura_ge
I think there's some misunderstanding.
People are jumping at conclusions too fast.
I guess what'ss happening is GOS team starting to embrace new technologies to *check* on code.
It seems they decided that dealing with false positives is a burden they are willing to take to receive also true positives.
There is a huge man in the loop involved in the process and only to *find* (not fix) bugs before they can be found by adversaries.
Am I missing something?
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @corigan01 @laura_ge it's hard for me to poopoo graphene using ai to find external threats when the Linux kernel and other OS's are burning ai programming into their systems.
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS I'm not saying that paper you are speaking is false but it's probably also not that simple, it's a strong support argument for anti-AI folks so that's why it's been mentioned alot but like all research just 1 paper isnt knowledge, we lack long term experience with those tools. Anyway I've seen this paper I know what you're talking about. I am happy with its conclusions if they are true it fits my political goals very nicely too, I find it good people are doing such research and we should do it more. I didnt say the more AI output the better necessarily, but that it's helpful to learn what those tools are like and how they work. I don't like having opinions on things I don't understand, it makes me feel like an impostor, how can you talk about something you have no knowledge of? It's much better in my opinion to make a very informed politcal critic of some tech, knowing very well how it works and not just spitting out inaccuracies and screaming out loud to progress a goal post. It makes it way more effective in my opinion if you can criticize it knowing exactly how it works and even better than many of its it's promoters if you can.
Replying to @laura_ge@eldritch.cafe
@laura_ge @GrapheneOS Hello Laurage,
You are overwhelming me with streams of thought, and I need a minute to catch up.
I am a little more tired than I was when I made the other three posts and my thought process is starting to degrade for the day, so I might take some time between my next couple responses.
I invite other nice people of fedi to come discuss in my place in the mean time!
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS I'm sorry yes I can be quite an intense writer, you don't need to answer, I'm making multiple toots to respond to 1 toot of yours because also my thoughts come up in chunks and I havent answered all points of your previous toots therefore I make another to finish as to not just ignore your side of the conversation.
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS "Since these are indeed probabilistic models, you will notice they code like a stack overflow post. It doesn't always "correctly" fit into the project the way one might expect. It gives this weird off feeling, however, that relies on the project having good coding standards to begin with. Something that can be eroded by continuous use of AI."
I don't think it's probabilistic nature causes the "off" feeling but rather if less capable models are used or if they werent given access to instructions to align their outputs with the project's code style, I was mentioning this because I think it has however impact on security use cases, that running the same input many times until saturation of substantially different outputs is relevant to pushing the limit of a model's capability for a task, specially security code review for a particular codebase, and also attention systems because of aggressive optimization that went into them for example models tend to reason more upon the tokens they were last fed and also post training instruction following bias (some models might be more trained and biased towards ignoring previous outputs more and specially ignoring all previous instructions and only follow the latest one skipping all previous instructions in context, it depends of models for that), so it can be beneficial to feed limited amount of code at a time for review so the model actually looks at all the code, etc.
I don't think Graphene OS wants AI use in any major capacity for code generation such that it would transform the project substancially in any way beyond it being human maintainable anymore as they said, and probably also only in areas where it doesnt matter for security like unprivileged apps where sometimes it can be needed to write alot of boring code etc.
Some anti-AI discourse seems to focus more on virtue of creating and using chemically AI pure software, while that's cool to keep writing code by hand for all the wonders and love of reading human code it can provide (I miss being able to go on git forges and happily read thousands of lines of code admiring and learning from it because it's written by people with good style or architecturing skills but I also do that less due to chronic headaches preventing me to feel good focusing too much on stuff). I don't believe such anti-AI virtue achieves much on a political basis to stop AI from existing or thriving while most of the people with alot of money are already largely funding it. Getting Graphene OS to be chemically AI pure software is not possible given it's dependencies and the AOSP project it's forked from already uses AI code generation.
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS musk tryed so so so hard to force its ai to not expose him as what he is, but again and again failed... — llm's need a uncomprehandable giant amount of data, it is possible to manipulatr it, to nudge it into a direvtion, play as a character... but the mass of the training-data will allways come through... to babysit a llm to make actually useable malicios code, so well written it wont be noticed needa a developer so good to babysit, they coud write it without.
Replying to @l0gin@mastodon.social
@l0gin @GrapheneOS Hello I0gin,
Sorry I am not sure I fully understand your post? Are you saying that AI companies are unable to invite vulnerabilities into their model's output due to the large training set?
I don't believe these two things are equivalent. In the case of Grok (eww), they tried to convince it never slip up. It only took one occurrence of it messing up to invalidate the whole thing.
In this case, however, the one occurrence is all it needs to be a problem.
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS hi <3
well yes and no : i am saying tgat while you can try to force a llm to go into a direction and yes, like you say one accurance of malicious intent is enought to make some thing malicious (if i understood your point correctly), that works for changing the tone of a conversation but will break code...
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS they way generative text 2 text work is that they basically arrange letters, words, blocks of text after eachother so it looks correct compared what they are trained for right? : thats why ist so fragile, and the moment you ask a llm for something that isnt "standart" like for claude-code to use fish instead of bash, give valid syntax for a niche languague based on python but not really python, or ask to do something that seems "wrong" it will need experience
Replying to @corigan01@todon.nl
@corigan01 @GrapheneOS modern code is very optimized, aswell as the debugging tools and the maintainers of stuff, a slipup wont be the reason AI breaks code in a evil way, a coder flattening out all slipups of a AI so the evil plan will go unnotices into a MR will be.. that my point, either someone is lucky or already more than able without ai to destroy something to use a LLM to use it to make unnotices malicious changes to longstanding infrastructure audited by others
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS get fucked, seriously
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS protects you from authoritarianism and fascism like when mom and dad tell you to do your homework and you really just want to play nintendo or the local government says you can't burn a pile of car tires on *your* property
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS if this policy keeps up I'm going to have to stop recommending graphene to people the same way Debian is no longer safe for casual users. You're throwing out your base audience. This sucks and you know it.
Replying to @bekkaboo@girlcock.club
Name one actively exploited Debian vuln that doesn't appear in other distros.
Replying to @libreovergratis@mastodon.social
@libreovergratis they've added vulns long before any of this
Replying to @bekkaboo@girlcock.club
@bekkaboo @GrapheneOS which policy do have issues with?
Replying to @bekkaboo@girlcock.club
@bekkaboo @GrapheneOS you better only be using NetBSD or Haiku then
Replying to @bekkaboo@girlcock.club
The base audience is people seeking privacy, security, and usability. They promised to uphold this mission and not using tools that help find exploits would be counter to this mission. They are doing exactly what they promised their users they would do, even if they dont like it.
Replying to @bekkaboo@girlcock.club
@bekkaboo Linux itself is heavily using AI models. Therefore, every Linux distribution moving to recent kernel versions is heavily built on top of using AI models. Creating a Linux distribution not heavily using it would require a hard fork of the Linux kernel and many other projects.
It's unclear what would be accomplished by banning AI for a tiny portion of the code while continuing to use Linux, AOSP, Chromium and hundreds of other projects heavily using it. We'd still be benefiting from it.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS
> Creating a Linux distribution not heavily using it would require a hard fork of the Linux kernel and many other projects.
The pitfalls of using LLMs are well known and documented. Hard forking everything would probably be for the best really. Leaning into it, out of pear pressure is really the bad move here (unless you think there's more to it than "pear pressure")
Replying to @zm@kolektiva.social
@zm We're using it to raise the quality of our code. Our current usage for the core OS is entirely for extra passes of code review and to find issues in our existing code. We began doing it after receiving a bunch of valid reports from external contributors of issues found with AI models. Several issues we fixed due to external contributors scanning our code with AI were serious issues including crashes and bypasses for protections. A lot of that was reviewed by over a dozen people already.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@zm Our Camera app was originally written in Java with the Android Views framework. It was ported to Kotlin years ago using Android Studio which was a non-AI machine translation. It has never been idiomatic Kotlin. It was written by a junior developer and we didn't apply strict enough code review or standards due to lack of resources.
It's ridiculous to portray experienced developers overhauling the app with everything going through a lot of review as writing slop because one uses AI tools.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@zm Our initial Camera app needed to meet the bar of being better than AOSP Camera which was horrible and the codebase was a huge mess. It succeeded in providing that and has been a decent camera app since then.
Camera needs a massive overhaul to meet our much higher current quality standards for the user interface, features and especially code quality.
We're doing the same for the incredibly outdated AOSP apps. Those are being nearly entirely overhauled with far higher quality code.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS
I still think you have to look at what this means from a cultural perspective.
Even if this is all true (i.e. you were getting amazing quality output from LLMs), it doesn't answer for all of the negative externalities of AI use (just look at why Codeberg banned it). You have for the most part called balls and strikes on a lot of the controversy and misconceptions surrounding this project and other similar projects.
It's given you a good enough reputation to get the user base you have and even land you in the news because of how secure it is. AI companies on the other hand have a terrible reputation and many people are jumping ship to something like GrapheneOS because of AI (and how it's being forced on their users)
If you can understand the reasons that people want to use GrapheneOS then you'll understand why people don't want you to allow AI use in this project. None of the technical challenges you're facing will even matter if your users can't trust you
Replying to @zm@kolektiva.social
If you can understand the reasons that people want to use GrapheneOS then you'll understand why people don't want you to allow AI use in this project.
You're taking too much upon yourself speaking for other people.
I use GrapheneOS and I want them to use LLMs in development to keep making the project even more secure since adversaries would use it when looking for vulnerabilities in it.
from a cultural perspective
More like political and shortsighted.
I'd prefer to trust people who instead of running around and crying about "cultural perspective" would make decisions based on observations like Torvalds or GrapheneOS developers did.
The technology is here. You can keep your head in the sand and let your users suffer because you just ignore the outside world or you can adapt and apply appropriate measures. Thankfully, this project decided to take measures.
People being vocal in social media in social media is not a threat to GrapheneOS user. People who look for vulnerabilities are. From security perspective it's a good decision. And if people who use GrapheneOS care more about the cultural perspective, maybe they don't really need this OS.
Replying to @zm@kolektiva.social
@GrapheneOS
> It's ridiculous to portray experienced developers overhauling the app with everything going through a lot of review as writing slop because one uses AI tools.
To my previous point, even if you feel that they're not writing slop because of AI use. They still are, because of the reputation they have of being used for that purpose (even among the best developers). Historical precedence shows that using AI over time will de-skill and you'll just vibe code eventually
Replying to @zm@kolektiva.social
@GrapheneOS
If you're looking for inspiration or feel like people are demanding the impossible, look at @elementary
This is OS development without AI.
Replying to @zm@kolektiva.social
@zm @elementary It's a Linux distribution based on Ubuntu. Linux and Canonical are both heavily using AI. Debian is permitting using AI with fewer restrictions and oversight than we impose.
They're not working on anything similar to we are or in a similar space to us. They do not have to defend against what we do.
Basing a project on other projects which are using AI is not avoiding using AI. Banning it for the downstream work is a tiny fraction of the OS.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @elementary@mastodon.social @zm@kolektiva.social
Basing a project on other projects which are using AI is not avoiding using AI. Banning it for the downstream work is a tiny fraction of the OS.i feel like that tiny fraction still matters. what, because we can't have it the whole way, we should give up on incremental improvements?
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @zm @elementary
>Basing a project on other projects which are using AI is not avoiding using AI. Banning it for the downstream work is a tiny fraction of the OS.
This sort of false dichotomy only serves to push folks to surrender any agency they have. I've never agreed with every aspect of every decision of the projects my work relies on, what a ludicrous claim! Y'all literally criticize Google's choices regularly, but you claim to operate differently and to a higher degree of quality within your project.
That is the reasonable and realistic level of agency anyone expects from a project.
The real stress from this situation is idk what to switch to from gos... Might just finally have to resort to a dumb phone if Android's "most secure" OS is this thick...
Side note, stop acting like you need AI to effectively operate in SWE. You don't, and if you just can't resist it then say that and drop it. Honestly if it was some offline model strictly being used for security reviews I wouldnt care that much, but watching y'all immediately start paying money to some of the most evil corps in the world, then have a meltdown when people are understandably concerned is enough to finally push me away.
GrapheneOS and DigitalOcean in 1 day... Gonna be doing a lot of infrastructure work here for a while 😭
Replying to @MonKaiju@todon.nl
@MonKaiju @zm @elementary We're doing the direct opposite of reducing quality. It's helping us catch things we're missing in our own code review. A couple of our newly hired app developers using it themselves is also going well and they're doing a high quality overhaul of the badly aged AOSP apps. That includes fixing long term latent vulnerabilities in apps like AOSP Messaging which we didn't know were there before.
Plenty of people already attacked us for using Pixels or AOSP due to Google.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
> but watching y'all immediately start paying money to some of the most evil corps in the world
We're paying for it on the scale of hundreds of dollars per month. If we were going to use it at a much larger scale such as for vulnerability discovery in the Linux kernel or AOSP then we would buy hardware and run the latest Chinese open weight models. We're currently leaving it up to the Linux kernel, AOSP, Chromium, etc. to handle that instead of us dealing with it.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @zm @elementary I mean doesn't giving hundreds of dollars a month to super evil corps, like the ones people move to gos to get away from, seem questionable? Seems like it'd be safer to either do nothing or fundraise for hardware to run a local model than to give what many of your users consider "the bad guys" money. Seems like something you could even switch to now and maybe recover some community trust.
Replying to @zm@kolektiva.social
@zm Codeberg also banned cryptocurrency which is our primary source of funding and is what we use to send money to nearly everyone on our team. A huge portion of our users are cryptocurrency users. Many of them care about financial privacy and support Monero. We also support financial privacy.
Most of the people attacking us on this platform aren't our users. We aren't being attacked elsewhere. People in our chat rooms oppose the attacks on us and it's only an active topic in the media rooms.
Watch this, people are also going to get pissed off because GrapheneOS accepts Monero lol
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @zm Sorry you're dealing with this. It's embarrassing.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS
Keep up the fantastic work GOS team. I like most of the decisions you've made, and I'll financially support the project once I'm capable of it. You lots have the sanest approach to a lot of technical issues. Most people complaining about AI use in production are just virtue signaling because muh AI slop muh evil corps muh environment muh losing jobs. Purely performative because hating the evil AI is a bandwagon everyone especially the normies are jumping on.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS
There's no neutral stance. You either join the AI hate cult or the AI worship cult. Bloody hilarious.
BTW a lot of folks who complain about AI slop create human slop themselves. AI creates slop because it feeds on human slop. Classic GIGO that is. So is AI even the right thing to hate? AI can write higher quality code than a lot of these mediocre software "engineers" anyway.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS how would you know that people on here are not your users? 🤔 @zm
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @zm girl this ain't it, this is probably the platform with the largest share of GrapheneOS users and also the most critical one — not out of hate, but of love and care
— Open image attachment 1 of 1Replying to @xerz@masfloss.net
@xerz @zm There are a lot of GrapheneOS users on the fediverse but it's hardly representative of the overall userbase.
Most people using GrapheneOS do not use social media accounts. The vast majority of our userbase does not have these super strong feelings for or against AI. The vast majority wouldn't want cloud AI in the OS and also largely dislike anything storing or learning stuff about their behavior. Details of what people want varies a lot. Many people want a lot of local AI features.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@xerz @zm Our discussion forum and chat rooms are a much better representation of our overall userbase than looking at the fediverse, X, Reddit or another platform. It's still only the subset of it willing to make those accounts. We get a good idea of the major differences in what people believe and want from their devices from our own platforms.
Nostr very likely has a higher proportion of GrapheneOS users. We don't have a project account for it but they can see a lot of our posts from here.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
Codeberg has banned cryptocurrency projects, not the use of cryptocurrencies. Codeberg e.V themselves have never accepted cryptocurrency to begin with.
What lead to the decision:
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/794
The vote they had about it:
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1254
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS
Codeberg has banned projects related to the actual development of cryptocurrencies, not projects that accept them as payment.
@zm
Replying to @ozzelot@mstdn.social
@ozzelot @zm We're aware they started by banning projects tied to the development of cryptocurrency which are what we rely on to accept donations and pay our developers around the world. We never said they banned GrapheneOS from using it for hosting. It shows we couldn't reliably use it for hosting since the bans may be greatly expanded in the future.
We brought up the other ban because it's another way that we're not at all on the same page. We care about preserving the privacy of cash.
Replying to @zm@kolektiva.social
I think you are over-estimating.
Vast majority of GOS users do not have such strong opinions on AI use.
In any case, I understand your points about AI slop, but re-reading GOS posts here on socials give me the impressions you are talking about different usage.
I think you both agree on most of the points, and GOS seems to have acknowledge all downsides, limiting AI usage to check on code, and not writing it.
Is this assessment correct or I am missing something?
Replying to @MagentaMold@mastodon.social
@MagentaMold @zm We allow people to use AI assistance to write code they're submitting to the project. It must meet high standards to pass code review so they're going to need to heavily refactor/rewrite it in practice.
We're not using it for the core OS code ourselves but we have gone through rounds of code review to get clearly AI generated external pull requests into shape and then merged them after it was all fixed. We usually have to do a final pass of fixes ourselves and then push it.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@MagentaMold @zm We're in a bubble where we don't use AI for much. We also don't trust AI harnesses to run directly on a workstation. It would need to be in a dedicated VM and then that's inconvenient.
On the other hand, most experienced software engineers at tech companies are using AI for assistance with writing code. It's part of Android Studio so it's there for people not seeking it out. Android SDK CLI was rewritten with it in mind too:
https://developer.android.com/studio/gemini/overview
https://developer.android.com/tools/agents/android-cli
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
> It must meet high standards to pass code review
I think that everything correctly reviewed must be accepted.
Even using my best skepticism, I heavily trust GOS team.
Looking at how things were managed in the past, I strongly believe they will make the correct choices for the project :)
In all my ignorance, If the code submitted does what it has to and it's written in correct idiomatic ways (for maintainability), I would even argue that it doesn't matter who/what wrote it.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
Winnowing (reviewing) the LLM chaff to find the real vuln signals has been a problem for our projects. Winnowing is the majority of the work; maybe 0.5% to 1% turn out to be real.
External reporters who use LLMs as a start, but then winnow themselves to report actual verified vulns, are great. 😉
The ratio of $60M of tokens (subsidized pre-IPO) doing less precise work than $10M of expert code review... is probably not sustainable.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS
@bekkaboo
Then a hard fork is needed.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @bekkaboo nirvana fallacy detected
"as the world is shit, does not matter what you do as you still depend on shit and the end will also be shit"
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS At least write your AGENTS.md by hand.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS this whole situation is just saddening.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS The streisand effect is strong with this one
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS that’s not right 🤦♂️ why can’t people just be nice 🤷♂️
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS You don't have to defend AI code use, it's clear to anyone that's actually paying attention that LLM-driven cybersec hardening and fuzzing is useful, and here to stay.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS can we hate more on cars please? people swear by them and outright reject alternatives. how is their rollout in the 50s any diff from what's happening w AI? cars are indeed useful and imo AI isn't at that lvl yet. but dependence on either is outright stupid. GOS' using the tool as a tool not an alternative. they're using it to accelerate their workflow not fire all devs to produce slop. when the well is poisoned, criticism is warranted. be nuanced and not blindly root for one side.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS many of your users spent a number of years recommending others to specifically avoid projects like calyx and "/e/" due to all the technical, security, and privacy reasons tirelessly documented by you, and use grapheneos instead, if they're able, *because* of your higher standards.
and now you keep saying on here that you can't avoid the upstream slop anyway.. others are doing it too, and that somehow makes it ok to use and "carefully" cook your own? this is wrong, and you know it
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@GrapheneOS as you might have realized these past few days a lot of people hoped those standards included taking a stance and rejecting / banning (yes we know people can just copypaste chatbot output and pretend) the use of that grotesquely unethical technology, no matter how i-swear-im-doing-heroin-responsibly good
it IS bad actually, did you ever stop to consider that maybe all those critics have a point, a lot of very good ones too, before conflating them with a targeted harassment campaign?
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@ludonaut We're not conflating anything. It's openly a targeted harassment campaign with the ringleaders of it well aware of what they're doing. This is one of the main people doing it who has been boosted by most of the other people with highly boosted threads. There's no secret about what they are trying to do. They're heavily using lies and misrepresentations about what we've said and done to do it.
What is being done is not an attempt to convince us of anything and has done the opposite.
— Open image attachment 1 of 1Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@ludonaut That's the direct opposite of what we've said. We're primarily using it to improve the quality of our code through additional passes of code review. We started doing that after multiple external contributors used AI to find a bunch of issues throughout our code. Most of those were issues like crashes but some were more important. Some of our low-level hardening features were not providing as much security as they were meant to be. We began using it proactively to catch issues early.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@ludonaut As you're well aware if you use GrapheneOS, there are a bunch of abandoned AOSP apps which haven't had any active development for years.
Those apps are stuck in the state they were in back in Android 5 or even earlier. Many even regressed. They've had bare minimum maintenance for years which gradually ended upstream.
The issues with those apps include them not being overhauled with privacy and security improvements applied elsewhere. It includes outdated dependencies missing patches.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@ludonaut We're in the process of overhauling these apps by rewriting nearly all of the code in phases. It's becoming much higher quality code with many bugs getting fixed as part of it. That includes fixing upstream privacy and security issues which have been around for years.
Vast majority of experienced developers working at tech companies are using AI. Most of the people applying to us are using them. We have to filter through people who can pass our tests but are too reliant on AI.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@ludonaut People using AI models doesn't imply the end result is lower quality. We hired the people who we decided are capable of producing high quality code and being productive with their usual approach to development. For people who made it past our initial screening, we gave test projects and we learned a lot about what they'll produce for us from it.
All of the work they're currently doing is clearly massively raising the code quality compared to the starting point of that AOSP app code.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS "additional passes of code review", you keep specifying "frontier models", why exactly do you believe this would make any difference, and how much of that donated money did you or the people you've hired spend on those death cult motherfuckers? how many tons of co2 do you think this took? how many liters of water ruined? how many lines of plagiarized code do you think? don't you love "not now/later" consent dialogs too?
actually, here, real simple, let me quote @jwz for you:
— Open image attachment 1 of 1Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@GrapheneOS please, i'm begging you to consider that people might be sad and angry and disappointed because they've put a lot of trust in you that they feel is being betrayed. it is actually a betrayal because how are people supposed to trust their operating system, or any computers, now that it's all top to bottom compromised by torment nexus chatbots that make you feel good
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@GrapheneOS
i for sure feel like a huge idiot now for ever recommending grapheneos to others, and i really don't know what i'm supposed to do now about my privacy except throw my phone into a river and walk into a forest. i don't know how many more bad news i can take, i just really wish you hadnt joined the llm bozo parade
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@ludonaut We spend hundred dollars per month on it and you're claiming we're destroying the world. We disagree with the premise in the first place but even if we did agree, it's such a disproportionate response.
How is it that this is such a big deal to you but you're not attacking everyone you know who eats meat, drives a car, travels by airplane and other wasteful things? Somehow we are the problem for using less resources on this than we've used for plenty of far less useful things.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@ludonaut You would probably be fine with us running a 256 core machine 24/7 doing fuzzing but yet us paying hundreds of dollars to get far more useful results is somehow us destroying the environment.
We do not understand where you're coming from or why you're so incredibly angry with us. It's not justified and does not make sense.
Many of the people attacking us travel around the world to conferences on airplanes, drive to work and probably have the carbon footprint of half our team or more.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @ludonaut me turning off my light when i go to work while a billionaire burns my lifetime carbon footprint in an hour
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS It has become a religious issue.
Replying to @Lightfighter@infosec.exchange
@Lightfighter @GrapheneOS yes on one side the pro AI sicko, who think it's a god who will solve everything.
and on the other side the Anti AI sicko who see it as anti Christ who will destroy everything.
With us normal people in the middle.
Replying to @skyblitz@ieji.de
@skyblitz @Lightfighter @GrapheneOS I am no fan of generative AI either, but I recognize it’s a tool that is currently needed because the opponents have them too. I’d just wish those tools would not be in the hands of those shitty companies
Replying to @Dawnexa@fosstodon.org
@Dawnexa @Lightfighter @GrapheneOS don't like AI, but sadly now the genie is out the box, and we cannot put it back.
so the only "thing" we can do without allowing the bad guy to win... is to force those company to develop the next generation to be less and less "bad" for humanity and the market.
Sadly right now due to a pedophile Orange child in the white house they do anything they want without any check on them.
Replying to @skyblitz@ieji.de
@skyblitz @Lightfighter @GrapheneOS I also think a proper ethical and open source AI model would go far.
I remember when OpenAI still was „Non Profit“
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS
hundreds of dollars per month huh... feels great i bet.
your actions matter. you don't exist in a vacuum, everything you do is political, even diet choice or mode of travel and what to compute, especially if the "you" we're talking about isn't a single person but a project. the nth times infinity digit of pi won't matter if computing it boiled off the oceans.
lamps in videogames, as the meme goes, use real electricity, and llm datacenters run quite literally on gas turbines.
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@GrapheneOS sidenote, i've had to block (edit: stopped counting) unusually hateful drive-by harassers since talking to you today, guess that's what i get for trying to help
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@ludonaut @GrapheneOS They CANNOT stop. That's not an opinion, it's a fact of running anything security-critical. If you genuinely believe otherwise, then by all means, join their security team for $200 a month and show us all how it's done, analyzing every line of code that lands on their desk with the same output as an AI. Until you're willing to do that, repeating the same flawed argument isn't helping anyone.
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@ludonaut @GrapheneOS
Are you vegan? And if so, do you only use software made by vegans?
@ludonaut @GrapheneOS What about other things you use in your life? Are they all made by vegans?
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @ludonaut People correctly associate LLMs with fascist oligarchs and obscene levels of corruption. That is not hyperbole. That is the literal genesis of the technology. THE ENTIRE POINT OF LLM CHATBOTS IS TO INFLICT HARM. I really don’t care if you limit your fascism budget to $200 a month. The correct fash budget is zero.
You embarrass yourself and what is otherwise an attractive product with your nonstop excuses and whattabouts.
Be better and just stop using it.
Replying to @LabSpokane@mas.to
Replying to @beaucoup@moutons.cafe
@beaucoup @GrapheneOS @ludonaut Fuck off back to your Reich.
Replying to @beaucoup@moutons.cafe
@beaucoup @GrapheneOS @ludonaut @LabSpokane
Marxism explicitly rejects moralism, arguing morality obscures the material contradictions of capitalism, such as exploitation and alienation.
Replying to @beaucoup@moutons.cafe
@beaucoup @GrapheneOS @ludonaut @LabSpokane Luddites are resurgent! And many of us are openly COMMUNIST too ✨😈
Replying to @MonKaiju@todon.nl
Replying to @LabSpokane@mas.to
@LabSpokane @GrapheneOS @ludonaut
They CANNOT stop. That's not an opinion, it's a fact of running anything security-critical. If you genuinely believe otherwise, then by all means, join their security team for $200 a month and show us all how it's done, analyzing every line of code that lands on their desk with the same output as an AI. Until you're willing to do that, repeating the same flawed argument isn't helping anyone.
Replying to @skyblitz@ieji.de
@skyblitz @GrapheneOS @ludonaut Oh hi there 3 follower Nazi asswipe from ze Fatherland.
Believe it or not, software got written ALL THE TIME prior to chatbots, so stick that in your V-1 and smoke it.
Now, fuck off back to your underground bunker.
Replying to @LabSpokane@mas.to
@LabSpokane @GrapheneOS @ludonaut it's hyperbole and you look stupid parroting this line of argument.
Replying to @MisterWanko@mastodon.social
@MisterWanko @GrapheneOS @ludonaut Back to your wanking. Blocked.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @ludonaut this is clearly just a value discrepancy that I doubt you can resolve with words. I see the fundamental values of grapheneOS as security and privacy and those of us who switched to it with that knowledge and expectation in mind will understand using "the tools of the enemy"/"unethical tools"/whatever to the end of better security/privacy. But right now llm-opposition as a primary value is in conflict with security as a primary value. Welcome to life in dystopia.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @ludonaut My general experience is terms like AI or LLM turn the brains of generally reasonable people into mush.
Much like arguing with a Trump supporter, or an NRA member it's not really an argument you can settles with reason or rational arguments.
This is about feelings, and for many humans they trump rationality. LLMs and the extraordinarily large impact they are having on the world right now (in good and bad ways) invoke a lot of them.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @ludonaut Yeah sorry but no, even running god knows how many fuzzers nonstop will not come close to the power usage of any serious LLM. And that's just talking about inference, not even training and crawling. Even so, power use is far from the only environmental concern, and environmental concerns are from the only AI concerns people have. And you know that.
Replying to @engideer@tech.lgbt
@engideer @ludonaut That's incredibly far from reality.
If we were using it for much more then we could buy a bunch of hardware and run open weight Chinese models locally. The reason we're not is because it's already being done by others.
It would be a higher priority if we were the ones responsible for dealing with the overall Linux kernel, AOSP and Chromium code getting security issues patched but we aren't. It makes more sense to spend our time and money on things not already being done.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
I'm sorry that you have to put up with this, but I believe there is a far greater majority that understands what you are doing.
Your approach seems sensible.
Using LLMs to find vulnerabilities, and accepting LLM written code as long as it conforms to standards and is readable/understandable/maintainable seems like a reasonable thing to do.
You don't have to defend yourself against every attack. Mastodon is getting pretty nasty. Some you can just ignore.
Replying to @engideer@tech.lgbt
@engideer @GrapheneOS @ludonaut Frontier-scale inference uses 0.31 Wh/query. A 40 watt light bulb uses the energy of 130 LLM queries per hour. A query with large context is 13x more, but that’s still extremely marginal compared to a bunch of fuzzing machines running 24/7.
If you really want to stop destruction of the environment, stopping flying and becoming a vegetarian/vegan is much more effective than yelling at @GrapheneOS
Replying to @danieldk@mastodon.social
@engideer @GrapheneOS @ludonaut Inference will only get cheaper energy-wise as more and more specialized inference hardware is being made.
At any rate, there are many studies about this, e.g.: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435126001145
@danieldk@mastodon.social @engideer @GrapheneOS why walk when you could roll coal instead
Replying to @danieldk@mastodon.social
@engideer @GrapheneOS @ludonaut This is all besides the point that LLMs can find many vulnerabilities that fuzzers and traditional static analysis tools cannot (easily) find.
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS @ludonaut but funny how certain asshole, immediately label you nazi because you simply state a fact that Security = AI + human.
If we put all those people with a negative IQ in orbit, we would not see the sun anymore.
Edit : corrected QI into IQ (translation mistake), thanks matt.
Replying to @skyblitz@ieji.de
@skyblitz @GrapheneOS @ludonaut Unless you're referring to the concept from Chinese philosophy I think you might have meant the eugenicist "IQ" lol
Replying to @MonKaiju@todon.nl
@MonKaiju @GrapheneOS @ludonaut yeah you are right i will correct it, my native language we use QI (quotient intellectuelle (belgian french)) instead of IQ thanks to pointing out my mistake 👍
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS you don't have to engage these people. you maintain one of the most important operating systems in use today and they contribute nothing but pissing and whining because they have experienced in the past that they get the attention they crave when it manages to hook into some general zeitgeist of concern. don't feed the concern trolls.
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@ludonaut frankly you should feel like an idiot for copying someone else's absolute objection to AI. jwz is not recognizing reasonable utility of AI, and that kind of lazy thinking is exactly what we don't want here.
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@ludonaut @GrapheneOS I somewhat have to agree with GOS. Most of people who hate on LLM use environmentally are not vegans and the meat/dairy industry does much more damage to the environment (and is also a literal holocaust of living beings).
I don't think LLM use is good, but I also don't think most people should speak up this harshly about it when they don't do the single easiest thing for the environment (and animal rights ofc) which is just going vegan.
I hate big tech as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong, but all the leftists are focusing on LLMs right now, because it's easier to blame a corporation than do something yourself first.
Replying to @skill@kolektiva.social
@skill @GrapheneOS sorry i forgot it's impossible for two bad things to be true at the same time
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
@ludonaut @GrapheneOS I didn't state anywhere that it's impossible, I'm just ranting that most people prefer to hate on AI (that will still be used, because it has a lot of value for business), where as going vegan (which reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the produced meat, which directly impacts animal lives and ecological aspects) would make a more direct positive impact.
I don't think hating on AI is bad, I am simply stating that it's mostly done by people who don't have enough will to stop doing something much more harmful themselves.
Replying to @ludonaut@timetheft.rip
communist filth must be destroyed
in a free marketplace of ideas I win
you suck
@ludonaut Your image description keeps using "Al" (a lowercase l) in place of "AI." (uppercase "I"). You didn't use AI to write it, did you?
Replying to @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
@GrapheneOS Thank you, Graphene for staying true to the mission and not unnecessarily campist.
🍉
