What does AI mean for Open Source?Balisage: The Markup Conference 2026August 3-7, 2026The recent meteoric rise of LLMs (Large Language Models) and associated tools was largely unexpected and surprising to most. The rapid ascent of this technology has caught many software developers unawares, leaving them suddenly somewhat ignorant, and arguably under-skilled.LLMs, whilst still advancing, have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in their ability to assist software developers in their day-to-day tasks (e.g., coding new features, and locating and fixing issues). However, the use and adoption of LLMs presents many larger challenges for society as a whole; many of which are not in themselves technical concerns.This paper examines the current and perceived impact of this technology in the context of Open Source. We identify several social, economic, environmental, political, legal, and technical concerns regarding the use of LLMs in Open Source projects.We contribute guidance around defining an AI Policy for Open Source projects. We further offer an AI Policy Score Card to assist projects in clearly defining and declaring how they wish to work with AI or not.AdamRetterAdam has been the Director of Evolved Binary Ltd since 2014, where
they specialise in software, consultancy, and training in information
storage and retrieval. Their customers include large governmental
organisations, publishers, universities, and one of the worlds largest
social media companies. Adam also co-founded eXist Solutions GmbH, a
software consultancy company in Germany. Adam has been instrumental in
the development of the eXist-db Open Source Native XML Database since
2005, and led its development from 2017. In 2024 Adam forked
eXist-db, to create Elemental, an advanced Open Source replacement for
eXist-db. eXist-db was previously used as the base for the cityEHR
Open Source Electronic Health Records software which is deployed in
the UK, Ukraine, Kenya, and Nigeria; from there in 2024, Adam was
appointed as a professor on the Applied Health Informatics program at
Fordham University.He is passionate about Open Source software, standards, and open
technical communities, and is an invited expert on several
international standards groups. Additionally Adam serves on the board
of several international conferences specialising in information
markup. He is a recognised expert in several computer programming
languages, and estimates that he has made contributions to over 50
different Open Source projects. He has also published the reference
book on eXist-db with O’Reilly and several papers that advanced the
state of the art in information retrieval in the publishing and
digital humanities domains.When not travelling, Adam can be found snowboarding or hiking around the peaks on the Italian French border where he resides.DirectorEvolved Binaryadam@evolvedbinary.com
https://www.evolvedbinary.com
Copyright Adam Retter 2026Large Language Model GovernanceArtificial IntelligenceOpen SourceCommunityPolicyCopyrightLicensingIntroductionResearch into LMs (Language Models) and NLP (Natural Language Processing) has been a subset of AI (Artificial Intelligence) research since the 1960’s. Developments such as ELIZA demonstrated a natural language chat-like interface between human and machine .Whilst research continued and incremental progress was made, it wasn’t until more than 50 years later, in 2017 that Google published their seminal paper introducing the Transformer Architecture that created the foundation for modern LLMs. In the last 9 years we have seen exponential growth in the development of new and more powerful LLMs:2018: GPT-1, and BERT2019: GPT-22020: GPT-32022: GPT-3.5, and ChatGPT2023: GPT-4, Claude 1, Claude 2, Claude 2.1, LLaMA 1, LLaMA 2, Gemini 1, and DeepSeek2024: Gemini 1.5, GPT-4 Turbo / GPT-4o, Claude 3, Claude 3.5, Claude 4.7, LLaMA 3, DeepSeek v2, DeepSeek v2.5, Mistral, Cohere, and Qwen2025: GPT-4.5, Claude 4, LLaMA 4, Gemini 2, Gemini 3, DeepSeek v3, DeepSeek v3.1, and DeepSeek v3.22026: GPT-5.2, GPT-5.3, GPT-5.4, GPT-5.5, GPT-5.6, Gemini 3.x, Claude 4.x, Claude Opus 5, Grok 4.x, and Qwen 3.xThese new generations of LLMs not only improved the human-machine chat interface, they also added audio voice chat capabilities and autonomous capabilities.Significantly for Software Developers an "Agentic" approach was developed. This provided: (a)APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) to access huge LLMs running in the Cloud, and (b) Software Agents that whilst operating locally within a Software Developer’s development environment can utilise these APIs to service tasks requested by developers. Such tasks include automated running of various tools and tests, development of new software code, and providing fixes to issues in existing code.Furthermore, the latest trend is towards orchestration of Agents, whereby you may have a fleet or cluster of LLM powered Software Agents running across multiple systems and utilising different LLMs collaborate on solving a particular task. Remarkably, using Open Source tools such as LangChain or n8n , it is quite possible today to have a team of Software Agents that act in a hierarchy, whereby one or more agents may be supervising or providing quality assurance on the work of one of more other agents.Whilst the modern capabilities of LLMs were barely imaginable just a few years ago, and may appear extraordinarily useful, their use and operation is not without concern. We will examine such concerns in the context of Open Source in .Open Source, not to be confused with Free Software , as a term is rather broad and arguably overloaded, itself an umbrella that covers several different aspects of both technical and legal domains.Officially, The OSD (Open Source Definition) sets out 10 criteria that a piece of computer software and its associated license must meet in order to qualify as "Open Source". The OSI (Open Source Initiative) recognises over 80 licenses that comply with the OSD; however, in practice there are far more Open Source licenses available, each offering different grants and restrictions on use. One may choose to publish their software under such a license if they wish it to be classed as Open SourceMore organically, there are what are known as "Open Source Projects", these are most usually software projects of a specific purpose that are developed by one or more persons and/or organisations. These persons and/or organisations collaborate, often online in public, to produce software that is licensed and published under one of the Open Source licenses.These Open Source Projects vary wildly in structure and governance. A project may be as simple as an individual creating software for their own pleasure, or perhaps a group of like minded individuals have a shared cause, and have coalesced around an idea to create software to assist anyone in improving some environmental concern. Conversely, at the other end of the spectrum, a project, may involve one or more large corporate/government organisation(s) producing a complex product through the collaboration of large teams of developers, upon which their business model depends.Ultimately, Open Source can be thought of as an ideology, part of which is encoded into a license for use of the product (e.g., software). An open Source license requires you to allow anyone else to both use your software and modify it, furthermore you cannot restrict the use of your software by any party that you might consider undesirable for any reason. This shared ideology infers not only the free exchange and development of ideas and technology, but from preventing any other entity from restricting this .Whilst there is nothing in the OSD that requires development of Open Source software to be carried out in the open and/or online, or even for the source code to be published online, the expectation of users since around the mid-2000’s is that Open Source projects will host their source code publicly online, and be developed in the public eye in a real-time fashion . Therefore, modern code projects are produced in public via online collaboration through a code repository such as GitHub, Sir Hat, or Code Berg.It is typical for an Open Source project to have multiple contributors who are geographically separated and perhaps not known to each other outside of their online presence. Differences in expectations, technical ability, language barriers, and differing human cultural and social norms of contributors, can be a strength, but can also contribute friction, making such projects challenging to govern.One could argue that any project involving multiple contributors is susceptible to such conflicts; however, for private companies with bespoke (closed) software projects and strong governance structures, such issues are easily hidden from public view within the confines of their organisation. As there is now an expectation that all aspects of an Open Source project are carried out and documented in public, interactions that lead to such friction and/or conflict, can often feel amplified or more significant when under the scrutiny of their peers. In an attempt to avoid such issues, many projects have adopted Code’s of Conduct such as Contributor Covenant , The Citizen Code of Conduct , or Anticode ; however, such policies are only of use if they are correctly enforced by the administrators and/or moderators of the project itself.Historically, all of these problems have been very human centric, and do not directly relate to the use of AI. However, it is our position that the use of AI, either by developers, or autonomously via agents, to submit changes to Open Source projects is likely to not only increase friction between humans, but also potentially introduce friction between humans and machines.It is therefore important that both the human and artificial contributors, current and future, to an Open Source project, all understand the project’s policy with regards to both human and LLM/AI produced contributions. Many Open Source projects already include documentation for humans about how to contribute, but very few have yet decided upon and/or published their AI Policy towards human-machine contributions, and few have documented these in a manner suitable for both humans and machines. To try and solve this issue, our contribution is an "AI Policy Score Card" that may be used by Open Source projects to gauge their AI Policy; see .Concerns for AI in Open SourceThe tragic impacts that LLM/AI can affect through sycophantic traits, including Chatbot Psychosis , continue to be documented by psychiatrists , The Human Line Project , and various news outlets .Open Source projects and code have historically been solely built by humans, with the rise of LLMs assisting Software Developers to generate code, Open Source founders should consider the impact of this upon their projects and contributors, and therefore must define their policy around AI carefully. First and foremost they must remember that Open Source contributors, i.e., software developers, however remote, are also human beings (to date), and as such are susceptible to the same AI biases and sycophantic reinforcement as any other sector of society; perhaps more so, as their use of AI is not just limited to their personal life, but also pervades their chosen career.The governance and purpose of Open Source projects span a wide spectrum, whilst some projects adhere to a common foundational model of governance , many more are completely ad-hoc and structured according to the founders and/or contributors preferences. Therefore, the concerns affecting the use of AI in Open Source projects whilst many, will undoubtedly vary from project to project.We present concerns that our research indicates are likely applicable to most Open Source projects. Whilst we recognise that some of these concerns are multi-faceted and cross-cutting, we have loosely grouped them into the following categories: Social, Economic, Environmental, Political, Legal, and Technical.Social ConcernsFor those human founders and/or contributors whom are not financially compensated for the time and resources they invest in Open Source projects, their contributions can largely be considered a social activity. Indeed, contributing to software that is published as Open Source, through the very nature of the OSD means that you are making something available to society as a whole.
The large majority of people contribute to FOSS because of fun (91%), altruism (85%), and kinship (80%). Moreover, when analysing differences in motivations to join and continue, the study found that ideology, own-use, or education-related programs can be an impetus to join FOSS, but individuals continue for intrinsic reasons (fun, altruism, reputation, and kinship).opensource.com - 2021-04-05
Allowing AI generated code into an Open Source project, regardless of a nett-positive or negative outcome, will have both, an immediate impact on the existing human contributors to the project, and also the ability of the project to attract contributors in future.On the one hand, human contributors may be keen to embrace AI, with the potential to help non/less-technical contributors implement code that that would otherwise be beyond their reach , or perhaps allow experienced developers to pair with AI to increase their velocity .On the other hand, experienced engineers may be disappointed with the code produced by AI , or lament having to review large change sets that have been partially or entirely generated by AI (that was not well instructed) and exhibit many issues .Whether for or against AI, software developers experiencing fear and/or depression triggered by AI is well documented ; they may experience the feeling of loss that they will no longer be able to enjoy socially crafting code , or the fear that they will be left behind by competitors that have embraced AI where they have not .Additionally, as human beings we subscribe to and/or create philosophies, ideologies, and belief systems. As such, individuals may, understandably and freely, exhibit and justify ethical and/or non-technical reasoning around the extent to which they embrace or reject AI. Around these new ideologies a number of colloquial terms are forming to describe them, such as "AI Vegan" , and the less strict "AI Vegetarian" .
I have a religious exemption from using all generative “A.I.”Catherine Sawers - 2025-09-12
If human contributors within an Open Source project are unhappy with its policy towards AI use, the project may experience a collapse of its social fabric, resulting in a loss of contributions and/or risk being forked. To avoid social conflict and worse, alienation, it would follow that some form of consensus will be required between the founders and/or contributors to the project on, if and how AI may be used in that project. We argue that that consensus, forms the basis of an acceptable use of AI policy for the project, and whilst it may of course evolve over time, it should be clearly communicated to any potential contributors.Economic ConcernsIt remains unclear whether Open Source in and of itself has had a nett-positive or negative affect on reducing the social-economic divide with regards to developing software.On the one hand, the cost of access to software tools has been reduced through eliminating licensing fees, and self taught developers can study existing code .On the other hand, producing and contributing to Open Source software requires hardware, a reliable internet connection, education (specialised technical knowledge), and potentially the wealth to allow individuals to contribute without financial compensation; this can make the cost of entry for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds impossible .We argue that the use of AI in Open Source projects may further increase the social-economic and digital divide between those that can afford to contribute and those that cannot.For SaaS (Software as a Service) based AI services, which appear to be the most commonly used, these are typically presented to the end user as either free, or with a subscription and/or token pricing model. The current startup companies behind these services have huge infrastructure and staff costs that are fuelled by large VC (Venture Capital) investments that have yet to be realised. Whilst these companies are striving for market dominance and determining the product-market fit for their offerings, they are operating their services at a loss and spending vast sums of VC money . During this time, the cost to some of using such services may seem reasonable, whilst to others it may already be prohibitive. We cannot yet determine what the true future price to the user of such services will be when these companies have to start making a profit to repay their investors .Sadly, we have not been able to find much evidence of discounted SaaS AI services to help those in developing countries or those from disadvantaged socially-economic backgrounds. The true financial cost of using SaaS AI services cannot yet be determined.For those who wish to avoid subscription services by operating their own AI/LLM models, there are also considerable costs, some of which are non-obvious .It would seem to follow that those Open Source projects that are well funded and/or operated by large private/government organisations may be able to afford to pay for AI use in their projects, whereas smaller or unfunded projects likely will not.We are not yet aware of any Open Source projects that strictly mandate the use of AI by contributors, but there are certainly already many projects that encourage its use. Unfortunately while the use of AI/LLM comes with a financial cost, which itself seems likely to increase, it seems inevitable that this will further increase both the economic-social and technical divides in contributing to Open Source projects.We believe that those championing the use of AI in Open Source projects should consider if they are excluding potential contributors due to social-economic status, and how they might remove that barrier.Environmental ConcernsA great amount of Open Source software is started under the banner of OSS4SG (Open Source Software for Social Good) ; however, serious secondary environmental impacts have been raised in relation to the operation of AI/LLMs which would seem to be at conflict with such a purpose.The operation of AI/LLMs at scale require large compute resources that pose a number of environmental concerns, the main of which can roughly be divided into three categories:Manufacturing of Equipment – the required hardware: compute nodes, computer network infrastructure, power and cooling systems, and housing. This requires raw materials (incl. rare earth minerals) that are mined, and then electricity and water during their construction .Construction – dedicated physical data centres need to be constructed to house all of the manufactured equipment. This requires the acquisition of suitable land, and development of it. This has been documented to lead to water pollution of the surrounding environment, and reducing nearby property prices .Operation – the day-by-day operation of the data centres require large quantities of electricity for power, and water for cooling. The by-product is pollution of the local environment from one or more of waste water, heat, noise, and light .Early research into the environmental impacts of LLM’s focused on the environmental costs of training the LLM’s. One such study, found that in 2019 training an LLM required nearly the same carbon footprint as an average human being creates during 60 years of their life . Since that time whilst LLM’s have become much more complex and training them requires ever more data, it is the scale at which they have been deployed, and subsequently made available as a service that has changed this landscape.Whereas previously training the LLM created a larger carbon footprint than its operation, that position has now been reversed. The latest research focuses on the total environmental cost, or which day-to-day use of the models forms a huge part. The UNU-INWEH (United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health) recently published a report suggesting that by 2030, global AI data centres will consume 945 terawatt-hours of electricity annually. This will require a massive water footprint for cooling and power generation equivalent to the basic annual needs of 1.3 billion people, alongside a land footprint exceeding 14,500 KM2 .Such environmental concerns affect us all, and it would seem likely that the impact of AI on our physical environment may be of particular interest to those operating under the banner of OSS4G, and in all likelihood, many more.We believe that such concerns may dissuade people from using AI, and by extension individuals and organisations may be put-off contributing to or using Open Source projects that make use of AI.At present it can be hard to determine if an Open Source project uses AI or not, we believe that such use should be clearly communicated and form part of the projects AI policy, thus allowing users and contributors to make informed decisions.Political ConcernsTo be completed pre-conference...Legal ConcernsTo be completed pre-conference...Technical ConcernsTo be completed pre-conference...Defining AI Policy for an Open Source ProjectDue to the recent exponential advancements made in LLM/AI research, the current period is one of great change in Software Engineering, this imparts a considerable amount of uncertainty upon those involved, and ultimately stress. Therefore, to reduce such stresses on developers, we argue that clear communication of an organisation or project’s use of AI policy is paramount.For those employed directly by an organisation, due to the potential legal implications, it is likely that a policy around the acceptable use of AI already exists (or could be rapidly developed upon request).However, for contributors to Open Source projects, individuals or organisations, whether for fun or profit, the reality is much more complex. Currently, few Open Source projects publish any information about their policy towards acceptable use of AI .Before potential contributors invest their time into an Open Source project, it would seem important for them to comprehend how AI may or may not be used in a project so that they may understand if the project aligns with their own goals. Therefrom, whether pro or anti LLM/AI, we argue that it is key for Open Source projects to clearly document and communicate their policy around the acceptable use of AI.To be completed pre-conference...An AI Policy Score Card for Open Source ProjectsInspired by the ‘5-star deployment scheme for Open Data’ [BernersLee10], we have developed a Score Card for AI Policy in Open Source projects. We believe that this Score Card can help Open Source projects gauge the quality of their documented policy towards AI.To be completed pre-conference...ConclusionTo be completed pre-conference...BibliographyJoseph Wizenbaum, ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine, 1966. ACM Communications of the ACM. doi:10.1145/365153.365168, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, Illia Polosukhin, Attention is All you Need, 2017. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. arXiv:1706.03762, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762, https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762Harrison Chase, LangChain - The agent engineering platform, 2022. https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchainJan Oberhauser, n8n - Secure Workflow Automation for Technical Teams, 2019. https://github.com/n8n-io/n8nRichard Stallman, Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software, 1998. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.htmlBruce Perens, The Open Source Definition, 1998. https://opensource.org/osdGiovanH, Ethical Source is Hot Garbage, 2021. https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2021/10/29/ethical-source-is-hot-garbage/Kevin Peterson, The GitHub Open Source Development Process, 2013. Mayo Clinic.Mohammad AlMarzouq, Abdullatif AlZaidan, and Jehad Al Dallal, The Relevance of SourceForge Data in the Age of GitHub, 2022. ACM SIGMIS Database. doi:10.1145/3571823.3571830Coraline Ada Ehmke, Contributor Covenant 3.0 Code of Conduct, 2025. https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/3/0/code_of_conduct/Christie Koehler, Citizen Code of Conduct, 2018. https://github.com/stumpsyn/policies/blob/master/citizen_code_of_conduct.mdWebb, The Anticode of Conduct. https://git.sr.ht/~webb/anticode/tree/master/item/ANTICODE.mdChatbot Psychosis, 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatbot_psychosisSøren Dinesen Østergaard, Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots and Delusions: From Guesswork to Emerging Cases, 2025. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. doi:10.1111/acps.70022, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.70022Hamilton Morrin, Luke Nicholls, Michael Levin et al., Artificial intelligence-associated delusions and large language models: risks, mechanisms of delusion co-creation, and safeguarding strategies, 2026. The Lancet Psychiatry. PII S2215-0366(25)00396-7, doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(25)00396-7, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(25)00396-7/abstractDr Ragy Girgis, What is AI Psychosis? A Conversation on Chatbots and Mental Health, 2026. https://nam.edu/news-and-insights/what-is-ai-psychosis/The Human Line Project, 2025. https://www.thehumanlineproject.org/Anna Moore, Marriage over, €100,000 down the drain: the AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/mar/26/ai-chatbot-users-lives-wrecked-by-delusionLiam Proven, Bcachefs creator insists his custom LLM is female and ‘fully conscious’, 2026. https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/02/25/bcachefs-creator-claims-his-custom-llm-is-fully-conscious/4671792Apache Software Foundation, How the ASF works, 2026. https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/Richard Burcher, Starting a Project at the Eclipse Foundation, 2014. https://www.eclipse.org/community/eclipse_newsletter/2014/july/article2.phpThe Linux Foundation, Host a project, 2026. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/projects/hostingIgor Steinmacher, Georg Link, Anita Sarma, Gregorio Robles, Bianca Trinkenreich, Christoph Treude, Marco Gerosa, and Igor Wiese, What motivates open source software contributors?, 2021. https://opensource.com/article/21/4/motivates-open-source-contributorsS M Rakib UI Karim, Wenyi Lu, and Sean Goggins, Artificial Intelligence in Open Source Software Engineering: A Foundation for Sustainability, 2026. Arxiv, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.07071, arXiv:2602.07071 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.07071Kevin Zheyuan Cui, Mert Demirer, Sonia Jaffe, Leon Musolff, Sida Peng, and Tobias Salz, The Effects of Generative AI on High-Skilled Work: Evidence from Three Field Experiments with Software Developers, 2025. MIT Economics. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4945566, https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/draft_copilot_experiments.pdfRob Edwards, and Richard Appiah, Developer Productivity in the Age of Generative AI: A Psychological Perspective, 2026. Google Research. https://research.google/pubs/developer-productivity-in-the-age-of-generative-ai-a-psychological-perspective/Software Engineering Benchmarks Report '26 - The AI Productivity Edition, 2026. https://assets.linearb.io/image/upload/v1777392920/resources/LinearB_2026_Software_Engineering_Benchmarks_Report.pdfFangchen Song, Ashish Agarwal, and Wen Wen, The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot, 2023. Social Science Research Network. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.02091, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4856935Daniela-Elena, Mental health in the ‘era’ of artificial intelligence: technostress and the perceived impact on anxiety and depressive disorders—an SEM analysis, 2025. National Library of Medicine Front. Psychol. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1600013, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12169247/Thibault Spirlet, Software engineers are facing an ‘identity crisis bordering on depression,’ Menlo Ventures partner says, 2026. https://www.businessinsider.com/software-engineers-face-an-ai-identity-crisis-vc-partner-says-2026-6Gergely Orosz, The grief when AI writes most of the code, 2026. https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/the-grief-when-ai-writes-most-of-the-code/Nolan Lawson, We mourn our craft, 2026. https://nolanlawson.com/2026/02/07/we-mourn-our-craft/Heesung Kwon, Jeesun Oh, Suyoun Lee, Sunok Lee, and Sangsu Lee, Investigating AI-induced Technostress and Coping Strategies of Professionals, 2026. CHI Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/3772318.3791671, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3772318.3791671Arwa Mahdawi, Meet the AI vegans, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/06/meet-the-ai-vegansLiam Proven, Struggling to put your AI aversion into words? Here's a handy glossary, 2026. https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/19/ai_skeptic_labels/Catherine Sawers, i included this in my syllabi this year, 2025. https://bsky.app/profile/catebridget.bsky.social/post/3mcxosc7c322tM. Pscheid, and Th.P. van der Weide, Bridging the Digital Divide by Open Source - A theoretical model of best practice, 2009. International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy. doi:10.4018/jide.2010040103Living open Source Foundation, Impact of Open Source in Developing Countries, 2024. https://livingopensource.org/impact-of-open-source-in-countries/Knut Blind, and Torben Schubert, Estimating the GDP effect of Open Source Software and its complementarities with R&D and patents: evidence and policy implications, 2024. The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-023-09993-xGoldman Sachs, Gen AI: Too Much Spend, Too Little Benefit?, 2024. https://www.goldmansachs.com/images/migrated/insights/pages/gs-research/gen-ai--too-much-spend,-too-little-benefit-/TOM_AI%202.0_ForRedaction.pdfGaurav Aggarwal, We will enjoy cheap AI coding assistants while they last, 2026. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gauagg_we-will-enjoy-cheap-ai-coding-assistants-activity-7463460994980306944-LYRR/Oleh Ivchenko, Cost-Effective AI: The Hidden Costs of “Free” Open Source AI — What Nobody Tells You, 2026. https://hub.stabilarity.com/cost-effective-ai-the-hidden-costs-of-free-open-source-ai-what-nobody-tells-you/Zihan Fang, Yueke Zhang, Thomas Zimmermann, Denae Ford, and Yu Huang, Contribution Patterns in Open Source Software for Social Good: Dynamics, Individuals, and Impact, 2026. Association for Computing Machinery Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. doi:10.1145/3788046AI Hardware Team, AI Hardware Sustainability: The Environmental Cost of GPUs and TPUs, 2025. https://aienergycalculator.com/ai-hardware-environmental-impact-sustainability/Richard Luscombe, Wyoming tightens wastewater rules after Meta datacenter contractor flushed contaminated water, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/08/meta-datacenter-ai-wyoming-waterDan Robinson, Google meets the neighbors and gets both barrels over its new UK datacenter, 2026. https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2026/07/24/google-meets-the-neighbors-and-gets-both-barrels-over-its-new-uk-datacenter/5277188Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum, Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP, 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.18653/v1/P19-1355Mariam Aczel, Sanaz Chamanara, Mir Matin, Aria Farsi, Tshilidzi Marwala, and Kaveh Madani, Environmental Cost of AI's Energy Use, 2026. United Nations University - Institute for Water, Environment, and Health. doi:10.53328/INR26RMA002, https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:10647/UNU-INWEH-Report-The_Env_Cost_of_AI-2026.pdfMelissa Weber Mendonça, Open Source AI Contribution Policies, 2026. https://github.com/melissawm/open-source-ai-contribution-policiesKate Holterhoff, The Generative AI Policy Landscape in Open Source, 2026. https://redmonk.com/kholterhoff/2026/02/26/generative-ai-policy-landscape-in-open-source/Tim Berners-Lee, 5-Star Deployment Scheme for Linked Data, 2010. https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/5_Star_Linked_Data