Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko?

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 03:27:46PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> Le mercredi 15 juillet 2026 à 22:12 +0300, Laurent Pinchart a écrit :
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 02:13:12PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 15 juillet 2026 à 14:21 +0200, Jori Koolstra a écrit :
> > > > While there is some truly ridiculous anti-LLM brigading in some open
> > > > source projects, I feel like saying it is just another tool does not do
> > > > justice to some of the harm that is done by that industry. Also,
> > > > precisely because of the usefulness of LLMs, I worry about creating an
> > > > uneven playing field, where new contributors can't keep up if they can't
> > > > afford the needed tools (something that is not as much the case with
> > > > compilers.)
> > > 
> > > So "fairness" is likely one of the numerous ethical concerns that can drive
> > > activist against LLM (in the sense of people actively avoiding it, boycotting
> > > for the real extreme one, but I want to include mild cases too) in contrast to
> > > luddite, that just don't accept the technology to provide any meaningful result.
> > > I'm personally interested in learning more about each and every ethical
> > > concerns, as this is needed to either fixi or mitigate the social issues this
> > > technology is creating.
> > > 
> > > On this aspect specifically, Sashiko is provided equally to the Linux community.
> > > This is very unlike coding agent, which capabilities and performance are highly
> > > tailored to your capability to pay. In that sense, fairness is minimally
> > > mitigated. I say mitigated considering someone have to pay for the compute and
> > > because its currently running off proprietary owned models, also require paying
> > > for extra royalties (which is an interesting ethical discussion in itself I
> > > suppose). Smaller projects may not have that level of donation or budget.
> > 
> > Or will to pay money to companies with dubious ethics (a strong
> > understatement).
> 
> Though, let's accept to cut this sub-thread here,

Sure.

> since we got off the
> "technical merit", meaning we are off-topic now.

I haven't argued much, if at all, about the technical merit in this mail
thread though.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart