Article seems to imply the Linux Foundation is susceptible to AI-related corruption/pressure.

But of all of the companies listed, Anthropic is the only one I'd consider related to what is implied.

Those other companies are huge conglomerates. They're some of the biggest companies in the world, with a foothold in just about every sector. You might as well draw correlations to IPv6, SSL, or any other technology. These companies have a vested interest in Linux for a ton of stuff that isn't related to AI at all. Stuff like network infrastructure and embedded devices come to mind.

All of these companies are huge Linux users. It‘s not always malicious intend. Internet companies need Linux for the internet to function.

It seems to me that what Linus Torvalds thinks about AI is pretty clear. There have been multiple messages from him on the kernel mailing list and interviews too to show this.

The author of this 'article' on the other hand seems to be having an issue saying what he really means.

I am a certified AI and big tech hater but I can't get too mad at Linus' statement. It's pragmatic and maintains human accountability for the code.

This explains why Torvalds came out with his opinion about AI. Sold.

I don't think the Linux foundation is the reason for Linus Torvalds saying AI is not excluded. This is not what you are claiming, but seems to be the onference of your post. The Linux foundation only spends a tiny fraction of their budget on the Linux kernel.

The whole point if open source is that anyone can contribute. Companies that see the value in Linux can donate. All these AI companies companies do so as it is in their interest to do so due the stability of Linux and its use in servers, now llms. It is the same reason nvidia are rapidly improving their Linux driver support. Web servers didn't need great support and Linux home users were a tiny fraction of their users. So they didn't give a toss. Then llms used graphics cards and they saw profit and opportunity. No different to these other companies, they invested where it suited them to, not where tje community wanted.

Limis is smart enough to not rock the boat with sponsorship, but not compromised enough by the reality of required sponsorship, in my view, to change ethos or dorection to chase said sponsorship. These donors, although largest, are worth much less than the thousands of free volunteers and many thousands of smaller donors that won't contribute to a compromised project.

I think AI is a bubble and is overhyped and I expect a financial crash due to it. I also foresee it is here for good, even though it won't be the revokution the investors hoped it to be. It is still revolutionary, but with severe flaws. I would like to be in a situation where ai continues to be best run on Linux and small home models are useful for most people rather than a dependence on cloud computing. We are seeing a transition to cloud based infrastructure for comoute, beyond what we've seen for storage of discrete consumer data, like photos. That is scary as once the power is gone from consumers to have alternative options from the big 7, the more the risk for society, in the same way that social media has had a terrible effect on data bubbles and personal conflict.

Phones have moved to iterative rather than revolutionary and their costs is going up rather than down. Likely people will choose to upgrade them less. Simolar for computers 10+ years ago unless you're a bleeding edge gamer. Even then there was the introduction of cloud gaming.

What we need is to continually have consumer options that respect privacy and user rights, which Linux is best placed to do. In doing so, it should offer all available options for computation, which includes ai. As linis says, ai is a tool. It would not make sense to categorically refuse it. Code should be approved based on merit. Already, we are seeing consumer pushback on ai. Spotify, for instance, now marks content as ai. Meta too. Xitter et al. And they all tried to initially pass off slop as content. They are recognising both the poorer quality and the customer resentment about that and adjusting accordingly.

Ai money is a bubble. I'm glad that some of that rich investor money is going to a good cause before the bubble bursts. Many of those companies were already donors before the launch of chatgpt which started the rollout of ai everywhere. Hopefully it continues afterwards. I hope their donations are partly what leads to their downfall, or at least the removal of their monopoly powers.

Author fears to say outright that he believes that Linux Foundation is corrupt organisation that takes bribes. First they don't recieve a lot of money, small IT company I've worked before had ten times that money with <5 projects and 5-10 developers at time. Company I've worked before that had monthly profit bigger than yearly donations that LF recieves. Developer work costs a lot, menagerial work as well. Second, LF is hard to pressure by these supposed agents of corruption. Third, in the event of LF actually being corrupt they can't really force LT to say shit, they don't have 'or else' option.

People complaining about companies not funding the oss software they rely on shouldnt find this to be an issue.

"AI is a tool for maintainers" says Linus and everyone's losing their shit it seems.

I wonder whose money is behind this article, redefining some of the biggest overall tech companies in the world, all highly dependent on Linux, as "AI companies".

perhaps consortium is a better description

Does the linux foundation actually spend 7.2 mil? That sounds like a lot tbh, especially for a non-profit.

ReEeeeeeeEeeeEeee AI. Must. Post. Reactionary. Trash. 🤣