I've been increasingly concerned about the corporate monopoly over frontier LLMs.

[hongminhee@hollo.social]

I've been increasingly concerned about the corporate monopoly over frontier LLMs. While many ethically-minded people choose to boycott these models, I believe passive resistance alone cannot break the structural grip of big tech. To truly “liberate” these technologies and turn them into public goods, we need to look beyond moral high grounds and engage with the material basis of AI—specifically compute, data, and the relations of production.

I've written two posts exploring this through the lens of historical materialism. The first piece analyzes why current “open source” definitions struggle with LLMs, and the second discusses what it means to “act materialistically” in our imperfect world. My goal is to suggest a path forward that moves from mere boycotting to a more proactive, structural socialization of AI infrastructure.

If you've been feeling uneasy about the AI landscape but aren't sure if boycotting is the final answer, I'd love for you to give these a read:

• Histomat of F/OSS: We should reclaim LLMs, not reject them
• Acting materialistically in an imperfect world: LLMs as means of production and social relations

#LLM #AI #opensource #historicalmaterialism #histomat #materialism #digitalcommons

[mro@digitalcourage.social]

Hi @hongminhee,
maybe #LLMs are the X-ray of IT.
In the early days used like candy. (Kids got their feet x-rayed in stores on open appliances, so the parents could see if the shoes fit. No kidding)
As experience grew, use was regulated and cut down increasingly. But it's still used to this day. For narrow usecases. Applied carefully.

Admittedly I doubt LLMs are as useful as #Xray. I think it's rather the #asbestos (which made wonderful things of concrete possible but mostly wasn't worth the downsides).

[hongminhee@hollo.social]

@mro@digitalcourage.social Hi, thanks for the sharp analogy! The X-ray/asbestos comparison is a classic way to view the risks of new tech.

However, my argument for “socialization” stems from the belief that LLMs are a significant productive force. If we view them as “asbestos,” the logical step is a total ban. But if we see them as a “utility” (like electricity), the current corporate monopoly is the real poison.

In a historical materialism framework, the “toxic” side effects we see today—like reckless resource consumption or data exploitation—are often driven by the capitalist mode of production (profit-first scaling). By “liberating” or socializing the material basis of AI, we gain the democratic power to regulate its use and minimize those downsides, turning it into a true public good rather than a corporate hazard.

[mro@digitalcourage.social]

Hi @hongminhee,
#asbestos wasn't banned from the beginning, nor was #Xray. Time told. So it may with #LLMs.
As to how productive they are - the data basis so far is too narrow to tell IMO. Some say so, some other. Recently a study claimed devs feel +20% but in fact are -20%.
I have the notion the L im LLM fits the B in Big IT quite well.

We have to re-focus from the means to the ends. What goals do we accomplish, not how much software do we engage.

[hongminhee@hollo.social]

@mro@digitalcourage.social Valid points. The “Large” in LLM indeed mirrors the “Big” in Big IT—that is precisely the materialist contradiction I'm highlighting. Currently, the scale required for these models forces a centralized, corporate structure.

Regarding productivity: as a developer, I view LLM not just as a “code generator” (where the ±20% debate happens), but as a new layer of interface for complex information. Whether it's asbestos or X-ray, the reality is that the “means” are already being deployed at a massive scale, shaping our digital society.

You mentioned focusing on the ends. I agree. But in our current system, the “ends” are dictated by those who own the “means.” If the means (LLMs) remain a corporate monopoly, the “ends” will always be profit and surveillance.

My argument for socialization isn't about “more software” for the sake of it; it's about reclaiming the power to define the “ends.” We can't democratically decide how to use (or even limit) a technology if we don't own the infrastructure it runs on. Even if we decide to use it “narrowly and carefully” like X-rays, that decision should belong to the public, not a boardroom.

[mathieui@piaille.fr]

@hongminhee I understand where you are coming from but I find a lot of the framing very naïve: "Open-Source LLMs" are anything but; all major players have shown and expressed they don’t give a single fuck about copyright, so I fail to see how an hypothetical "TGPL" would steer anything in the right direction. I fundamentally disagree with your (and some of Marx’s) analysis of tools, the Luddite parallel is well-noted, but did the weavers ever got to reclaim the technology? No, because it was the product of its own social and political context, and it cannot be disconnected from it, except in an abstract world with no relation to our own

[hongminhee@hollo.social]

@mathieui@piaille.fr Thanks for engaging with this. I appreciate the pushback, and I think some of your concerns are worth taking seriously.

That said, I want to clarify something about my position: TGPL (or any specific licensing mechanism) is just one possible avenue among many. The broader argument isn't tied to any single instrument. Regulatory pressure on governments to mandate that models trained on public data be returned to the public, expanded public funding for open research infrastructure, international treaty reform—these are all on the table. The point is strategic pluralism, not a bet on one tool.

On the copyright concern: yes, major players have shown contempt for copyright. But that's precisely why I think purely technical or market-based solutions are insufficient, and why political and legislative pressure matters. The history of generic medicine access is instructive here—no single mechanism won that fight, but the combination of compulsory licensing advocacy, treaty pressure, and public funding reform produced real change over time.

Now, your Luddite parallel: I actually think it argues for my position rather than against it. You're right that the weavers never reclaimed the technology. But the lesson I draw from that isn't “therefore reclamation is impossible.” It's that refusing or destroying the means of production doesn't work. What eventually produced change was organized labor movements that took the existence of that technology as a given and fought over who controls it and under what conditions. That's exactly the kind of struggle I'm advocating for here.

The real question you're raising, I think, is about the subject: is there an organized political force capable of carrying this through? That's a fair and hard question. But it's an argument for building that force, not for abandoning the goal.