On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 12:43:21PM -0300, Pirate Praveen wrote:
----draft proposal ----
LLMs have made a huge leap in language translations, but at the same
time depending on big tech companies to provide this service is not a
good idea.
1. Public AI is AI as public infrastructure like highways, water, or
electricity.
2. Public AI must use Free Software models.
3. At this point, we don't want to insist on training data being
freely available, similar to how we don't insist on Free Hardware
Designs. The challenges to practically being able to use the available
data should be factored in. Similar to how costly it would be to
produce hardware from Free Hardware Designs, even when training data
is available, huge computing power is required to use it practically.
4. Translations generated by Public AI can be accepted.
5. Code / documentation generated by Public AI can also be accepted if
it preserves share alike / copyleft conditions of original code used
in training.
--- drat ends ----
Please consider not using "public AI" in your ballot name, many people
will consider ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Mistral etc "public" because it is
publicly accessible on the Internet, and you're redefining that term in
your ballot.
That being said, your proposal basically forbids using AI made available
by the big global players, where the music is currently playing. While
it is legitimate to do that, this privileges rich DDs who can afford big
hardware to run local models or DDs with a corporate sponsor.
Is "public AI" as you define already available today, and what would be
the approximate costs to make use of that? How good is the code produced
by public AI today, compared to what for example claude produces?
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
