Re: Ballot Option: Allow public AI for translations

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 12:43:21PM -0300, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>----draft proposal ----
>
>LLMs have made a huge leap in language translations, but at the same 
>time depending on big tech companies to provide this service is not a 
>good idea.
>
>1. Public AI is AI as public infrastructure like highways, water, or 
>electricity.
>
>2. Public AI must use Free Software models.
>
>3. At this point, we don't want to insist on training data being 
>freely available, similar to how we don't insist on Free Hardware 
>Designs. The challenges to practically being able to use the available 
>data should be factored in. Similar to how costly it would be to 
>produce hardware from Free Hardware Designs, even when training data 
>is available, huge computing power is required to use it practically.
>
>4. Translations generated by Public AI can be accepted.
>
>5. Code / documentation generated by Public AI can also be accepted if 
>it preserves share alike / copyleft conditions of original code used 
>in training.
>
>--- drat ends ----

Please consider not using "public AI" in your ballot name, many people 
will consider ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Mistral etc "public" because it is 
publicly accessible on the Internet, and you're redefining that term in 
your ballot.

That being said, your proposal basically forbids using AI made available 
by the big global players, where the music is currently playing. While 
it is legitimate to do that, this privileges rich DDs who can afford big 
hardware to run local models or DDs with a corporate sponsor.

Is "public AI" as you define already available today, and what would be 
the approximate costs to make use of that? How good is the code produced 
by public AI today, compared to what for example claude produces?

Greetings
Marc