Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 515 posts

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#111

Post by amarant »

tuna74 wrote: post #31
amarant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the case, and even the point, of all open source, even before AI? What's the point of a gift if the receiver isn't allowed to benefit/profit from it? For instance, do you think Linus is upset that ~90% of all internet servers are running his os, for profit, without paying him? Of course he isn't, that was the point of the whole thing! Are you upset Netflix, Google, and heck, even Microsoft are raking in mi…

Linus T explicitly licensed Linux under a license that allows anyone to run it but requires people who modify modifications to share those modifications.

Correct! This is the exact reason anyone who wants to use the os itself as a moat uses FreeBSD as a base instead, and add proprietary modifications to it. FreeBSD also being a open source gift, that does not have those requirements that Linux does.

Prominent examples include Sony PlayStation, and Apple OSX.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#112

Post by skeledrew »

OSaMaBiNLoGiN wrote: post #4

I think one of the more prominent issues folks take with mass training on OSS is that the companies doing it are now profiting for having done it. In his follow-up post he talks about him open sourcing old games as a gift, and he doesn't much care how people receive that gift, just that they do. He doesn't acknowledge that Anthropic, OpenAI, etc, are profiting while the original authors are not. The original authors…

> But that doesn't mean they don't care if other people profit from their work

This doesn't make sense. You make something and put out there, for free, of your own will. Why do you care if someone takes it and makes a profit? Shouldn't you have taken that profit route yourself before if that's what you wanted?

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#113

Post by alpaca128 »

28304283409234 wrote: post #56
elteto wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attack the argument not the man. Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_, since, presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit.

Open Sourcing software has _nothing_ to do with 'gratis'. Can't believe this still needs repeating in 2026.

It's not a requirement but it is so correlated that there's no need to react so strongly. I struggle to remember a single paid open source tool off the top of my head but could name dozens that you can just use for free.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#114

Post by lelanthran »

amarant wrote: post #22
OSaMaBiNLoGiN wrote: post #4

I think one of the more prominent issues folks take with mass training on OSS is that the companies doing it are now profiting for having done it. In his follow-up post he talks about him open sourcing old games as a gift, and he doesn't much care how people receive that gift, just that they do. He doesn't acknowledge that Anthropic, OpenAI, etc, are profiting while the original authors are not. The original authors…

Isn't that the case, and even the point, of all open source, even before AI? What's the point of a gift if the receiver isn't allowed to benefit/profit from it? For instance, do you think Linus is upset that ~90% of all internet servers are running his os, for profit, without paying him? Of course he isn't, that was the point of the whole thing! Are you upset Netflix, Google, and heck, even Microsoft are raking in mi…

You dont know what GPL is?

It's not an unconditional gift, it's got strings attached.

AI training on GPL works is basically IP laundering, you're taking the product without paying the asking prices.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#115

Post by skeledrew »

radlad wrote: post #72
toast0 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no Carmack, but everything I've released as open source is a gift with no strings (unless it was to a project with a restrictive license). A gift with strings isn't exactly a gift. If you take my gift and profit, it doesn't hurt me, there were no strings. Your users presumably benefit from the software I wrote, unless you're using it for evil, but I don't have enough clout to use an only IBM may use it for evil l…

Presumably you are licensing your code as MIT or a similar license. Not all code is licensed that way. Some open-source code had strings attached , but AI launders the code and makes them moot.

If you want to attach strings which involve restricting access, open source is not the way to go.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#116

Post by Copyrightest »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #5

As I understand it, the anti-AI stance of open source software people in particular has nothing to do with AI learning from code bases, and everything to do with AI slop clogging all unrestricted community feedback channels.

[dead]

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#117

Post by lelanthran »

skeledrew wrote: post #112
OSaMaBiNLoGiN wrote: post #4

I think one of the more prominent issues folks take with mass training on OSS is that the companies doing it are now profiting for having done it. In his follow-up post he talks about him open sourcing old games as a gift, and he doesn't much care how people receive that gift, just that they do. He doesn't acknowledge that Anthropic, OpenAI, etc, are profiting while the original authors are not. The original authors…

> But that doesn't mean they don't care if other people profit from their work This doesn't make sense. You make something and put out there, for free, of your own will. Why do you care if someone takes it and makes a profit? Shouldn't you have taken that profit route yourself before if that's what you wanted?

Getting the credit and the modifications is the profit.

You basically are looking at a contract and saying you aren't going to agree to the terms but you're taking the product anyway.

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#118

Post by radlad »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #94
radlad wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably you are licensing your code as MIT or a similar license. Not all code is licensed that way. Some open-source code had strings attached , but AI launders the code and makes them moot.

No one cares. Copyright in general is done, and we are all stronger now. Don't fight AI, fight for open models.

The thing is, copyright is not done. The legal framework still exists and is enforced so I am not sure how to read your reply as anything other than a strongly worded opinion. Just ask Disney.

I use AI every day in my dev workflows, yet I am still easily able to empathize with those who did not intend for their code to be laundered through AI to remove their attribution (or whatever other caveats applied in their licensing.)

Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

#119

Post by anonymousab »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #102
GeoAtreides wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are no open models. none. zero. there are binary files that some companies are allowing you to download, for now. it was called shareware in the old days. one day the tap will close and we'll see then what open models really means

Not true; e.g. https://allenai.org/open-models . For my own purposes, open weights are 95% as good, to be honest. I understand that not everyone will agree with that. As long as training takes hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of somebody else's compute, we're always going to be at the big companies' mercy to some extent. At some point they will start to restrict access, as you suggest, and that's the point wher…

> and that's the point where the righteous indignation displayed by the neo-Luddites will be necessary and helpful

At that point it will be far, far, faaaaar too late.

> Don't waste your passion defending legacy copyright interests

The companies training big models are actively respecting copyright from anyone big enough to actually fight back, and soaking everyone else.

They are actively furthering the entrenchment of Big IP Law.

Post reply on HN