Again, and I brought up more details elsewhere in this thread. This is assuming utility as the principal axis. You highlighting art as having a utility "to be observed* is more of this neo-liberal hyper optimization psychology.
I am awash in projects that compile. Frankly, for most use cases, getting the code to compile is a pretty easy step. But all those other axis? Those are much tougher.
So, yes, “does it compile and run” is generally table stakes as I can’t interact much with the code without that step. However, comparing it to art, that is functionally the equivalent to “is it visible to a human somehow” as far as requirements to be considered art.
Because of this, the utility of code, that is “does it serve my needs”, is not the principal axis by which to judge it for me. It is just one of many axis’ that are used to judge.
This isn’t limited to code by the way. Every field, and every technology, gets this treatment. It is simply not enough to make a product that does a task. I’m looking for conviviality.
You see, it is the principled axis though. Let me paint an analogy: suppose, you’re very thirsty, but there’s no water to be found. You see chips, dried fruit, cakes, biscuits, but no water. Would you really care about how ethically all of those were sourced, how nice they are, or how much the cook loved to make them? If someone started to tell you all of this snacks’n’deserts lore while you were literally dying of thirst, you’d most probably become very irritated, because all of those beautiful snacks and desserts is not what you need right now. What you need is water, and hour by hour you’re starting to care less and less about how muddy it should be, or where it comes from.
What I’m saying is, when a certain niche is overflowing with various pieces, it might seem like utility is not primary, but the opposite becomes really apparent as soon as there’s nothing to fill in that said niche. The rest is just a privilege that we all have, thanks to the abundance of literally everything that we live in. I too have the privilege to avoid projects written in Python, simply because i have a personal preference against it, or to avoid shady vibe-coded slop. With linux kernel tho? I mean, if someone clones it, and does a better job at not letting bugs into production, while releasing at the same pace or quicker than the current kernel project does, i’ll switch to it too. Except i doubt somebody could compete with a team of seasoned vets, that know how to use their tools and can with ~95% accuracy tell which parts of code would break at a first glance. Until then, i’ll stay on vanilla linux kernel, because it does its job of keeping my pc functional, which i need to win some bread.
Your analogy adds a condition for need that my framework does not presuppose and, because of that, I feel it is a weak analogy.
My entire argument is that value is judged against a wide host of different axis. Do I have a literal deathly need for a drawing app to support Gaussian dithering? Like, will I die of that isn’t present? No. Obviously in a life or death situation we select the object which will most rapidly and most effectively meet our need. Though even under those circumstances there are limits a lá trolley problems.
On to your main point as to the value of non-utility features inside of an underserved niche. That really depends on the niche doesn’t it? If the niche is LoRa communication networks in disaster environments than perhaps I am more willing to tolerate something churned out by an LLM until something better comes along but if the niche is not human life preservation than it’s not dire enough to justify compromising on the other things I care about.
A more accurate anology that you might have asked me is "if you really wanted a croissant and you had the choice between a delicious croissant made with forced child labor, no croissant, or a pan é chocolat would you really not choose the croissant?
To which my response is “Yes, I would pick something else”.
My entire argument is that value is judged against a wide host of different axis.
And you continue to fail to see that I have never said otherwise. There is a certain logical leap between “this is the only factor that matters” and “this is objectively the main factor, but we have the luxury to not care about it because we live in a post-scarcity environment”. You can afford to not choose the croissant because you know there’s other food to choose from, and more over, that there are other croissants just like this one, but with no child labor inside.
On to your main point as to the value of non-utility features […]
There’s no such thing as “non-utility feature”. But there’s the order of importance of factors, which is, of course, subjective and highly-cotextual. If you personally value the fact that a given software was written without the use of LLMs, than its functionality, because you somehow deem it as “more moral”, you’re free to stay on the outdated kernel, or switch over to NetBSD. I guess that’s the part of our discussion where you explain to me why you think using LLMs in an opensource non-profit collaborative project with the given rule that the person who submits the code is still fully responsible for it and should be able to answer any technical question regarding it is wrong.
You’re still establishing utility as “chief among equals.” I have already responded to this premise. The total value of something is the weighted sum of its individual value axis’ and those weights are derived from context. Once again, neither of us is discussing a situation in which survival is dependent upon the use of LLM output. We’re describing, at worst, CVE remediations and, at best, driver enhancements. While I don’t know what your material condition is I feel it is safe to say that you are not likely to die as a result of amdgpu not being up to date. Because of this the word “objectively” that you’re using is doing a lot of work.
Regarding the claim that there is no such thing as a “non-utility-feature”; yes there is. There’s a whole term for it; " nonfunctional requirements". It’s something not uncommonly brought up in product planning. If you mean “utility” in the broadest sense of “does thing” than this conversation is pointless. That definition provides no distinction between “this accomplishes tasks that I want accomplished” and “this is built in such a way as I would want it built”. Surely we can agree those are different things?
You are right to say that I find the use of LLMs distasteful even under ideal circumstances. And I have stopped using Linux for that reason. Hell I stopped using Neovim for that reason, I’m very close to getting rid of my browser. If push comes to shove I may eventually go full hermit and use 9front as the thought of using anything that’s been touched by them is rather sickening. I’m not sure how much longer I can stand knowing that most everything I see online has been tainted at some point.
You’re still establishing utility as “chief among equals.” I have already responded to this premise.
What? That you won’t eat a croissant made with forced child labor? You didn’t provide any reasoning why utility isn’t the objective primary characteristic.
The total value of something is the weighted sum of its individual value axis’ and those weights are derived from context.
Do you lack reading comprehension, because I repeat for the third time, you’re defining a subjective value, and i have no problem with that definition. I gave it in my previous response. Let me quote myself, since apparently you didn’t bother enough:
[…] there’s the order of importance of factors, which is, of course, subjective and highly-cotextual.
You can take average, weighted sum, product, whatever the fuck you’d like, the scalar you’d receive would still express the same characteristic, it being the subjective value of a given thing. Subjective and objective realities are two different things. You can’t say characteristic is objective if it involves the context of your personal limited perception and personal taste, developed through your individual, unique set of experiences.
I gave you the ad-absurdum example about water, and you still didn’t get it. Without something fulfilling the purpose of quenching the thirst there’s no use in how nice and well-done everything is. It’s the same with non-life-defining matters. Except even the line between what’s vital and non-vital itself is also individual.
The opposite of vital would be something like the fact that Linux doesn’t run games like Fortnite or Call of Duty, due to their invasive anti-cheats. Guess what, players of those games still won’t switch to Linux, precisely because it can’t fulfill its purpose for them, i.e. run the fucking game.
Regarding the claim that there is no such thing as a “non-utility-feature”; yes there is. […] If you mean “utility” in the broadest sense of “does thing” than this conversation is pointless.
I don’t mean it in any of the fancy corporate senses, i mean it in the most direct and literal way possible. When I say that everything has its utility, I mean that, for example, even such a “non-utilitarian”, purely cosmetic feature as a visually pleasing UI design has utility of a) making a given piece of software more noticeable, as it will stand out from software with worse design b) makes overall end-user experience more enjoyable c) makes the software itself look more polished and presentable. Another example, no-AI policy has a promotional utility, widening the potential audience without risking anything (it’s not even legally binding in its most common form, and when it is, the software, legally speaking, stops being OSS, traveling into Source Available category).
That definition provides no distinction between “this accomplishes tasks that I want accomplished” and “this is built in such a way as I would want it built”.
In the particular case of LKMS or software in general? Yes. This isn’t applicable towards a software that you have no information about how it was built tho. I don’t see any problem with that tho. It just reclassifies your personal preference into a yet another task a given software should accomplish. By your definition of utility, LKML’s product does everything you’d ever want/need. By mine it doesn’t. By your logic anything that allows you to do basic math operations on numbers is a calculator, and whether someone uses a sheet of paper, an abacus, an actual physical calculator, an app on a phone, or an app on a pc, is just a matter of personal preference and taste. After all, they all accomplish the same purpose, the only difference is how they do it. My optics say, that the majority will prefer a phone app, because everyone nowadays has a phone with them at all times, but i personally right now would use a pc app, because i’m at my pc already, so that way i won’t need to take out my phone. My favorite way to sum up a bunch of numbers didn’t change because the context shifted tho.
It’s all the same with the operating systems. My favorite? Absolutely Linux. Do I dislike Windows and Mac OS? Absolutely. Would I still use Windows on my job if I had no choice? Surprisingly, despite my personal preference, yes, absolutely. Because the utility of the money the job pays outweighs the disutility of Windows being a piece of crap. The scales will most probably tip eventually this hypothetical tho, because the more money I have, the less utility each dollar has for me.
You are right to say that I find the use of LLMs distasteful even under ideal circumstances. […]
In other words, you’re extremely biased, to the point of calling an LLM-produced code “tainted”, despite (or rather thanks to) the fact there’s no traceable evidence by which you can distinct each individual line of code as LLM/non-LLM-written.
I can understand why, given all the over-hyping combined with layoffs and lots of other unethical decisions. But honestly, to me its like blaming the knife and not the killer. Even without LLMs, the human greed is still ever-present and all-consuming. This is the thing that deserves all of the witch-hunting.
P.S. Sorry for the tone at the start. I was a bit frustrated, but cooled down along the way of writing this. I’m leaving it the way it is tho. It has its own utility:)
Again, and I brought up more details elsewhere in this thread. This is assuming utility as the principal axis. You highlighting art as having a utility "to be observed* is more of this neo-liberal hyper optimization psychology.
I am awash in projects that compile. Frankly, for most use cases, getting the code to compile is a pretty easy step. But all those other axis? Those are much tougher.
So, yes, “does it compile and run” is generally table stakes as I can’t interact much with the code without that step. However, comparing it to art, that is functionally the equivalent to “is it visible to a human somehow” as far as requirements to be considered art.
Because of this, the utility of code, that is “does it serve my needs”, is not the principal axis by which to judge it for me. It is just one of many axis’ that are used to judge.
This isn’t limited to code by the way. Every field, and every technology, gets this treatment. It is simply not enough to make a product that does a task. I’m looking for conviviality.
You see, it is the principled axis though. Let me paint an analogy: suppose, you’re very thirsty, but there’s no water to be found. You see chips, dried fruit, cakes, biscuits, but no water. Would you really care about how ethically all of those were sourced, how nice they are, or how much the cook loved to make them? If someone started to tell you all of this snacks’n’deserts lore while you were literally dying of thirst, you’d most probably become very irritated, because all of those beautiful snacks and desserts is not what you need right now. What you need is water, and hour by hour you’re starting to care less and less about how muddy it should be, or where it comes from.
What I’m saying is, when a certain niche is overflowing with various pieces, it might seem like utility is not primary, but the opposite becomes really apparent as soon as there’s nothing to fill in that said niche. The rest is just a privilege that we all have, thanks to the abundance of literally everything that we live in. I too have the privilege to avoid projects written in Python, simply because i have a personal preference against it, or to avoid shady vibe-coded slop. With linux kernel tho? I mean, if someone clones it, and does a better job at not letting bugs into production, while releasing at the same pace or quicker than the current kernel project does, i’ll switch to it too. Except i doubt somebody could compete with a team of seasoned vets, that know how to use their tools and can with ~95% accuracy tell which parts of code would break at a first glance. Until then, i’ll stay on vanilla linux kernel, because it does its job of keeping my pc functional, which i need to win some bread.
Your analogy adds a condition for need that my framework does not presuppose and, because of that, I feel it is a weak analogy.
My entire argument is that value is judged against a wide host of different axis. Do I have a literal deathly need for a drawing app to support Gaussian dithering? Like, will I die of that isn’t present? No. Obviously in a life or death situation we select the object which will most rapidly and most effectively meet our need. Though even under those circumstances there are limits a lá trolley problems.
On to your main point as to the value of non-utility features inside of an underserved niche. That really depends on the niche doesn’t it? If the niche is LoRa communication networks in disaster environments than perhaps I am more willing to tolerate something churned out by an LLM until something better comes along but if the niche is not human life preservation than it’s not dire enough to justify compromising on the other things I care about.
A more accurate anology that you might have asked me is "if you really wanted a croissant and you had the choice between a delicious croissant made with forced child labor, no croissant, or a pan é chocolat would you really not choose the croissant?
To which my response is “Yes, I would pick something else”.
And you continue to fail to see that I have never said otherwise. There is a certain logical leap between “this is the only factor that matters” and “this is objectively the main factor, but we have the luxury to not care about it because we live in a post-scarcity environment”. You can afford to not choose the croissant because you know there’s other food to choose from, and more over, that there are other croissants just like this one, but with no child labor inside.
There’s no such thing as “non-utility feature”. But there’s the order of importance of factors, which is, of course, subjective and highly-cotextual. If you personally value the fact that a given software was written without the use of LLMs, than its functionality, because you somehow deem it as “more moral”, you’re free to stay on the outdated kernel, or switch over to NetBSD. I guess that’s the part of our discussion where you explain to me why you think using LLMs in an opensource non-profit collaborative project with the given rule that the person who submits the code is still fully responsible for it and should be able to answer any technical question regarding it is wrong.
You’re still establishing utility as “chief among equals.” I have already responded to this premise. The total value of something is the weighted sum of its individual value axis’ and those weights are derived from context. Once again, neither of us is discussing a situation in which survival is dependent upon the use of LLM output. We’re describing, at worst, CVE remediations and, at best, driver enhancements. While I don’t know what your material condition is I feel it is safe to say that you are not likely to die as a result of amdgpu not being up to date. Because of this the word “objectively” that you’re using is doing a lot of work.
Regarding the claim that there is no such thing as a “non-utility-feature”; yes there is. There’s a whole term for it; " nonfunctional requirements". It’s something not uncommonly brought up in product planning. If you mean “utility” in the broadest sense of “does thing” than this conversation is pointless. That definition provides no distinction between “this accomplishes tasks that I want accomplished” and “this is built in such a way as I would want it built”. Surely we can agree those are different things?
You are right to say that I find the use of LLMs distasteful even under ideal circumstances. And I have stopped using Linux for that reason. Hell I stopped using Neovim for that reason, I’m very close to getting rid of my browser. If push comes to shove I may eventually go full hermit and use 9front as the thought of using anything that’s been touched by them is rather sickening. I’m not sure how much longer I can stand knowing that most everything I see online has been tainted at some point.
What? That you won’t eat a croissant made with forced child labor? You didn’t provide any reasoning why utility isn’t the objective primary characteristic.
Do you lack reading comprehension, because I repeat for the third time, you’re defining a subjective value, and i have no problem with that definition. I gave it in my previous response. Let me quote myself, since apparently you didn’t bother enough:
You can take average, weighted sum, product, whatever the fuck you’d like, the scalar you’d receive would still express the same characteristic, it being the subjective value of a given thing. Subjective and objective realities are two different things. You can’t say characteristic is objective if it involves the context of your personal limited perception and personal taste, developed through your individual, unique set of experiences.
I gave you the ad-absurdum example about water, and you still didn’t get it. Without something fulfilling the purpose of quenching the thirst there’s no use in how nice and well-done everything is. It’s the same with non-life-defining matters. Except even the line between what’s vital and non-vital itself is also individual.
The opposite of vital would be something like the fact that Linux doesn’t run games like Fortnite or Call of Duty, due to their invasive anti-cheats. Guess what, players of those games still won’t switch to Linux, precisely because it can’t fulfill its purpose for them, i.e. run the fucking game.
I don’t mean it in any of the fancy corporate senses, i mean it in the most direct and literal way possible. When I say that everything has its utility, I mean that, for example, even such a “non-utilitarian”, purely cosmetic feature as a visually pleasing UI design has utility of a) making a given piece of software more noticeable, as it will stand out from software with worse design b) makes overall end-user experience more enjoyable c) makes the software itself look more polished and presentable. Another example, no-AI policy has a promotional utility, widening the potential audience without risking anything (it’s not even legally binding in its most common form, and when it is, the software, legally speaking, stops being OSS, traveling into Source Available category).
In the particular case of LKMS or software in general? Yes. This isn’t applicable towards a software that you have no information about how it was built tho. I don’t see any problem with that tho. It just reclassifies your personal preference into a yet another task a given software should accomplish. By your definition of utility, LKML’s product does everything you’d ever want/need. By mine it doesn’t. By your logic anything that allows you to do basic math operations on numbers is a calculator, and whether someone uses a sheet of paper, an abacus, an actual physical calculator, an app on a phone, or an app on a pc, is just a matter of personal preference and taste. After all, they all accomplish the same purpose, the only difference is how they do it. My optics say, that the majority will prefer a phone app, because everyone nowadays has a phone with them at all times, but i personally right now would use a pc app, because i’m at my pc already, so that way i won’t need to take out my phone. My favorite way to sum up a bunch of numbers didn’t change because the context shifted tho.
It’s all the same with the operating systems. My favorite? Absolutely Linux. Do I dislike Windows and Mac OS? Absolutely. Would I still use Windows on my job if I had no choice? Surprisingly, despite my personal preference, yes, absolutely. Because the utility of the money the job pays outweighs the disutility of Windows being a piece of crap. The scales will most probably tip eventually this hypothetical tho, because the more money I have, the less utility each dollar has for me.
In other words, you’re extremely biased, to the point of calling an LLM-produced code “tainted”, despite (or rather thanks to) the fact there’s no traceable evidence by which you can distinct each individual line of code as LLM/non-LLM-written.
I can understand why, given all the over-hyping combined with layoffs and lots of other unethical decisions. But honestly, to me its like blaming the knife and not the killer. Even without LLMs, the human greed is still ever-present and all-consuming. This is the thing that deserves all of the witch-hunting.
P.S. Sorry for the tone at the start. I was a bit frustrated, but cooled down along the way of writing this. I’m leaving it the way it is tho. It has its own utility:)