From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-101403-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F447158041 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:13:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69E822BC016; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27B912BC013 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lnx-gentoo-dev@m.gmane-mx.org>) id 1rj40t-0001ED-My for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 22:13:51 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:13:46 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <pan$d34ea$7a2ed20b$e1999d97$223c1cb2@cox.net> References: <a2b8c68b1649213cf237f40e41f9a460a5667c34.camel@gentoo.org> <robbat2-20240305T050858-871585605Z@orbis-terrarum.net> <pan$dab93$4e2c8aab$14040300$66909243@cox.net> <759431674cf90b42a9f003369a3bd5f248091b0b.camel@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Pan/0.155 (Kherson; 020f52b16) X-Archives-Salt: 4b8ed890-acbb-41e6-a3e1-a4dc0855c3da X-Archives-Hash: 9ac963333ff6dd3a5062e29c300b5884 Michał Górny posted on Sat, 09 Mar 2024 16:04:58 +0100 as excerpted: > On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 03:59 +0000, Duncan wrote: >> Robin H. Johnson posted on Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:12:06 +0000 as excerpted: >> >> > The energy waste argument is also one that needs to be made >> > carefully: >> >> Indeed. In a Gentoo context, condemning AI for the computative energy >> waste? Maybe someone could argue that effectively. That someone isn't >> Gentoo. Something about people living in glass houses throwing >> stones... > > Could you support that claim with actual numbers? Particularly, > on average energy use specifically due to use of Gentoo on machines vs. > energy use of dedicated data centers purely for training LLMs? I'm not > even talking of all the energy wasted as a result of these LLMs at work. Fair question. Actual numbers? No. But... I'm not saying don't use gentoo -- I'm a gentooer after all -- I'm saying gentoo simply isn't in a good position to condemn AI for its energy inefficiency. In fact, I'd claim that in the Gentoo case there are demonstrably more energy efficient practical alternatives (can anyone sanely argue otherwise?, there are binary distros after all), while in the AI case, for some usage AI is providing practical solutions where there simply /weren't/ practical solutions /at/ /all/ before. In others, availability and scale was practically and severely cost-limiting compared to the situation with AI. At least in those cases despite high energy usage, AI *is* the most efficient -- arguably including energy efficient -- practical alternative, being the _only_ practical alternative, at least at scale. Can Gentoo _ever_ be called the _only_ practical alternative, at scale or not? Over all, I'd suggest that Gentoo is in as bad or worse a situation in terms of most energy efficient practical alternative than AI, so it simply can't credibly make the energy efficiency argument against AI. Debian/ RedHat/etc, perhaps, a case could be reasonably made at least, Gentoo, no, not credibly. That isn't to say that Gentoo can't credibly take an anti-AI position based on the /other/ points discussed in-thread. But energy usage is just not an argument that can be persuasively made by Gentoo, thereby bringing down the credibility of the other arguments made with it that are otherwise viable. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman