[Question] Anyone know if there's tech companies that are ether actively anti-AI or local-model-only? Getting tired of stuff like "Claude usage is a KPI!"
Cross-posted from "[Question] Anyone know if there's tech companies that are ether actively anti-AI or local-model-only? Getting tired of stuff like "Claude usage is a KPI!"" by @[email protected] in ![email protected]
26 replies
What is KPI in this context?
If your org puts token burn as a KPI, there’s an app for that <3
I have seen yeah, though I think they're locked-down security enough that it might get flagged as malware
This is a list that needs to exist.
Preferably either self-hosted git or one of the no-AI git hosts like Codeberg or git.gay
kinda cool & makes me happy that this exists. <3
They're good people, it's run by a collective called besties.house
wholeheartedly agree! are they affilliated with bestieverse by any chance? That instance ticks all the boxes for me and might get me to switch from .world
Unsure, I know they've got a official Mastodon server, but unsure if they have anything else such as Piefed/Lemmy/Pixelfed
hmmm.... alright. Thank You!
The AI Dirty List maybe?
Shiny.Edit: This list should be pinned to this community by the mods.I thought this was a good list until I started clicking on the entries. So far, I can't find one citation.
They rated an AI company, as in there whole purpose is the usage and creation of AI, as cleaner than Wikimedia?
Which like, Wikimedia aren't clean for sure, but they're cleaner than companies whose whole purpose is to create Slop
Slop maker, should be 100% dirty:
Slop maker, should be 100% dirty:
Uses slop, but don't produce it or sell apps to make it:
SHITTY (around 30% clean)
While I do agree with your comment, the site still doesn't post their sources for their claims.
It literally does???
I've clicked that button many times, not once is a source presented.
They're all provided! It's below the dates
Ah wait, they reference the articles, but never actually link to them?
That's what I've been trying, and failing, to get across.
Aye, I see what you mean now
Doing a search of the titles does find them, and they're real, but fucking weird to just quote them without any linkbacks
I'm glad someone else can confirm this, I was starting to think it was me unable to find the links.
Wait, it does have links, just bad UX makes that unclear, it looks like a subheading
All they really needed to do is put it as
Source: Link
It's a good list and I do appreciate you posting it.
As for citations, Techdirt and The Guardian have posted pro-AI articles. Do you see URLs for those articles? I don't see them.
They're there ... ?
I had no idea this even existed 😯