Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

京鴨汁つけうどんを食べに来た。

@wildwestrom@hackers.pub 그냥 놀러 왔어요! 사람들도 좀 만나고요. ㅎㅎ

宿にチェックインした。

@Yohei_Zuho@mstdn.y-zu.org 😭

@Yohei_Zuho@mstdn.y-zu.org 花粉症のせいですか？

成田空港に着いた。

仁川空港に来た。

@esna@serafuku.moe 이미 國漢文混用體로 쓰고 있습니다. 😎

明日からHaze Leeさん（@nebuleto@hackers.pub）と一緒に一週間東京に旅行に行くんだ。楽しみ！

@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.

@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.

@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.

@hyunjoon@mastodon.social 아… 생각해 보니 Mastodon은 引用 權限 시스템이 있어서 그런 것 같네요.

@hyunjoon@mastodon.social 갑자기 딴 얘기인데, 왜 引用 機能 안 쓰고 그냥 링크로 거셨나요?

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

以前から、東アジアにもFediConのようなイベントがあればいいなと言い続けてきました。独自のカンファレンスはまだ難しそうですが、小さな一歩として考えていることがあります。

@COSCUP@floss.social 2026（台北、8月8日〜9日）がコミュニティトラックの提案を受け付けています。FOSDEMのSocial Web devroomのような感じで、Social Webトラックを開けないかなと思っているところです。

まだ構想段階ですが、ActivityPubやフェディバース、ソーシャルウェブ全般に取り組んでいて、発表や共同オーガナイズに興味があるという方がいれば、ぜひ話しかけてください。

https://floss.social/@COSCUP/116152356550445285

#SocialWeb #ActivityPub #fediverse #フェディバース #COSCUP #fedidev

東아시아에도 FediCon 같은 行事가 있으면 좋겠다는 말을 여러 番 해왔는데요. 獨立的인 컨퍼런스는 아직 어렵더라도, 작은 첫걸음으로 생각해보고 있는 게 있습니다.

@COSCUP@floss.social 2026(臺北, 8月 8日–9日)이 커뮤니티 트랙 提案을 받고 있어요. FOSDEM의 Social Web devroom 같은 느낌으로, 거기서 Social Web 트랙을 열 수 있지 않을까 하고 構想 중입니다.

아직 確定된 건 아무것도 없지만, #ActivityPub, #聯合宇宙, 或은 소셜 웹 全般을 다루고 있고 發表나 共同 오거나이징에 關心이 있으신 분이 있다면 이야기 걸어주세요.

https://floss.social/@COSCUP/116152356550445285

#SocialWeb #fediverse #연합우주 #페디버스 #COSCUP #fedidev

I've been saying for a while that we need something like FediCon in East Asia. A dedicated conference is still a stretch, but I've been thinking about a smaller step:

@COSCUP@floss.social 2026 (Taipei, Aug 8–9) is accepting proposals for community tracks. It might be worth trying to open a Social Web track there—something in the spirit of the Social Web devroom at FOSDEM.

Nothing is decided yet, but if you're working on #ActivityPub, the #fediverse, or anything in the social web space and might be interested in speaking (or co-organizing), I'd love to hear from you.

https://floss.social/@COSCUP/116152356550445285

#SocialWeb #COSCUP #fedidev

@silverpill@mitra.social That's right. I think client-side abstraction will be necessary when ActivityPub C2S interactions become more widespread, too.

@hyunjoon@mastodon.social 그냥 字體가 다른 건데… 어느 쪽이 좀 더 《康熙字典》 字體에 가깝냐를 基準으로 쓰고 있습니다. ㅎㅎㅎ