• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Don’t expect anyone to come running to make things better for disabled people unless they think they can make a profit off of it.

    Which, since all this AI bullshit is driven purely by the profit motive, means that you’re just as right to be wary of things that help the disabled from these AI companies as much as anything else.

    Lots of companies have “helped the disabled” with specialized technological implants. Then when the company goes tits up, the people they’ve “helped” are left with slowly breaking implants and a fortune of a surgery to get the implant removed, since it no longer works or is supported.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/25/1073634/brain-implant-removed-against-her-will/

    Expect the same treatment from AI companies. Once you’re not profitable, they want you to get fucked.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        They’re great, but if the last 20-30 years of Open Source are any indication, most average people do not use Open Source, and beyond that, most don’t even know what it is.

        The use of Open Source projects is mainly in corporations, while individuals using Open Source projects make up a small minority of the use cases.

        I would love to see growth in that arena, but if the past is any indication, it will struggle to grow.

        Further, as these may be considered “medically assistive devices” you run into the issue of possibly needing FDA approval to even distribute it.

        • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Open source AI is huge, and I don’t think you need FDA approval to distribute a model. Where are you even getting that from?

          • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            We’re talking about people with disabilities, and depending on what you’re doing with AI, it can get organized under being a medically assistive device, which suddenly becomes an FDA issue.

            Ask the people who run Open Source projects aimed at opening up things like Glucose monitors or CPAP machines. They are harangued by the FDA. The FDA claims the projects are dangerous and that only professionals and doctors should have any ability to modify them.

              • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                You realize there’s regulation other than just banning things, right?

                https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/open-source-software-risks-in-the-health-sector-tlpclear.pdf

                October 2023: FDA finalizes guidance mandating that all medical devices running software must create and maintain a software bill of materials (SBOM), including for open-source software.

                Still, the point being is that to develop Open Source medical software, you’re going to be dealing with potential regulations that you must pass to be able to legally release the software in places like the USA (you can always host the files in some country that doesn’t give a shit). Achieving meeting the regulation can often drastically increase the cost of development. Open Source projects can’t just magic up more money for development like giant corporations can.

                Look in 2024 we’re barely cracking 5% of people in the world using Linux as a desktop. The FDA doesn’t have to ban it to make “normal” people scared of using Open Source solutions. It’s a harder hill to climb than just getting people to change their desktop OS.

                • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  There are more ways to help people than making medical software. Rather than saying they could focus on doing simpler things, you automatically jumping to all projects running afoul of FDA regulations is pretty telling. All while still having not provided a single project halted by FDA order.

        • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Exactly this. I’m a developer currently. Before that I had only a vague idea of what open source was, basically that it’s visible to everyone. Didn’t know about github, or any other application of open source outside of pc software and I was kinda advanced tech user with flashing custom roms, trying out Linux etc. Laymen have no idea what’s going on, exceptions aside.