Is most of the training data for popular LLM tools stolen? Yes, but the algorithms are not so from a theoretical perspective there’s nothing inherently wrong with developers using AI (which itself is a broad term covering frontier models to simple neural net classifiers) but it’s a matter of their tools which afaik is the responsibility of the developer. (Ex. Devs aren’t banned from using VS Code even though Microsoft is not a good company) (Ex. Dont upload user PII to online tools just to convert a pdf you’re responsible if they steal user data)
So really responsible AI means developers accept liability for any theft or plagarism these tools commit, just as they would if they plagarized code themselves which is less problematic for developers than introducing precedent for restricting developer tooling.
In theory you could revert the commits that are labelled AI-generated but given the scale and application of LLMs that’s a lot of code to rewrite that was already reviewed by maintainers for a lot of important processes and will have likely undergone far less scrutiny and correctness tests. Until AI companies are held responsible for training data that’s stolen and their generated outputs are held to legally be plagarism there is negative incentive to rewrite ai-generated code.
Efficiency is an important part of the ethics discussion, so anti-AI arguments look undeveloped when they ignore this point. Just because your ideology does not care for efficiency does not mean its an important part for others.
Ex. Many maintainers may be interested in ways to efficiently triage the increasing amount of bug reports without having to rely on AI systems Ex. Many on Lemmy believe capitalism is an inefficient system and should be overhauled in order to more efficiently distribute goods and services. Ex. insurance systems can lead to more unjust and widespread harm.
Its not an either-or scenario purposely avoiding efficiency in favor of other morals can result in serious negative moral consequences. Much like how sacrificing other ethical considerations in favor of efficiency can result in negative consequences. Fulfilling as many desirable ethical standards is the most optimal outcome to software.
For AI, this means that ignoring the impact it has had in the field to call them “slop clankers” looks ignorant and purposely misleading without proper nuance addressing the negative impacts it has on ethical concerns that are directly tangible to projecgs.
Asking FOSS projects to account for the more intangible ethical concerns (ex. broad sweeping and competiting concerns about culture theft, the enviroment, and capitalism) and then enforce it on the ideological diverse set of contributors just comes down to ideological policing for intangible improvement to the project, harming the long term viability of FOSS.
Much in the same way people discuss the user base of bluesky over its actual technical merits, which makes bluesky feel more ideologically isolated compared to FOSS.
This is also in addition to the fact the device this post is being viewed on is built on top of these intangible ethical conflicts, desired for their efficieny utility in the modern world. AI also has these issues at scale but then we’re introducing the problem of “a what scale is it okay to violate ethics.” It doesnt make sense to shame people for using a device deeply integrated into the operation of the world, or at least readily used by a non-negligible amount of people.
Relevant article: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/jun/02/ethical-use-proprietary-develop-free-software-foss
People who are concerned about the big ethical concerns of AI should really be working to make and learn about ethical ways to use and develop AI as well as holding techconglomerates and billionaires accountable (ex call your reps). Not harassing volunteer developers and disparaging their projects for consequences that have not played out (yet) in these historically well maintained projects. Saying established projects like Linux have gone ‘full slop’ and slandering maintainers as bootlickers just reeks of FUD, fragments the community, foster ill will in FOSS, and is unproductive to the development of FOSS when it is needed now more than ever.