• Snot Flickerman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    20 days 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
      6
      ·
      20 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            20 days 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
              20 days 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
      ·
      20 days 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.