Single post

jump to replies

7 replies

back to top
Julien Bidoret , @julienbidoret@post.lurk.org
(open profile)

@adele Thanks for having written this down, and pointed me to it. I understand your points, but am not sure I agree. For me, smolweb (and whatever the spelling or specific name we use) isn’t just about performance, accessibility, lightweight pages and support for older devices. It also has (should have?) a political stance. If we seek to optimise page size, combat hardware obsolescence and make content accessible, it is to address social, environmental –political– issues. The use of LLMs seems to me to run counter to these issues. Even local models strike me as a full-scale endorsement of the political agenda championed by LLM vendors and developers (an agenda that I feel to be diametrically opposed to that of the smolwebs).

That being said, sorry if I just add another item to a discussion you had multiple times.

@julienbidoret I understand your point of view. I used to spread some basic concept and to stay in this area. Sometime, imposing stricter rules exclude a part of the public that could be impacted, rejecting them. Restricting smolweb concept to people also refusing AI usage is not the way I think. Refusing AI is a different struggle (that is also legit).