Comment by Hendrikto
4 days ago
Of course nobody is obligated and I never claimed that. In fact, I fucking hate the LLM hypetrain. But this decision is decidedly non-neutral and non-free.
4 days ago
Of course nobody is obligated and I never claimed that. In fact, I fucking hate the LLM hypetrain. But this decision is decidedly non-neutral and non-free.
Fair point, but I mean perhaps it's not fair for them to have to impose usage limits (which would limit everybody) when they could just make a decision to avoid certain types of projects (which they feel strongly about.)
What would a neutral free SaaS look like to you?
Simple: Provide the same freedoms to everybody. Do not get involved unless absolutely required to by law. That entails not restricting access for specific projects, and not revoking freedoms for any reason. Everybody should get the same treatment.
For example, in the case of being overloaded by AI contributions, a neutral solution would be to implement the same rate-limiting for every project. Set a sensible limit, and enforce it universally. Do not discriminate specific projects.
Why should GNOME and Forgejo, which are great projects, have to suffer the same limitations as a blob of non-working output from a Markov chain?
It is like saying Gmail shouldn't delete spam, but instead, should apply a limit of 1 message per day per destination per source address to all messages.
Most vibe projects aren't even projects in the way that spam isn't even mail. The message says it's from my bank but it isn't. Why should I have the same limits on messages that say they're from my bank and messages that are actually from my bank?
5 replies →