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

121–130 of 515 posts

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

#121

Post by _DeadFred_ »

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.

I know tech normally breaks the rules/laws and have been able to just force through their desired outcome (to the detriment of society), but I don't think they are going to be able just ignore copyright. If anything those who depend on copyright see how ruthlessly/poor faith tech has treated previous industries and/or basically anyone once they have the leverage.

Tech is becoming universally hated whereas before it was adored and treated optimistically/preferably.

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

#122

Post by skeledrew »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #96
CamperBob2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

From a political perspective there's no closing that tap, only opening it further. As long as China exists there will be constant pressure to try to stay ahead, or at least match Chinese models. And China is gleefully increasing that pressure over time, just waiting for the slip that causes a serious migration to their models.

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

#123

Post by radlad »

skeledrew wrote: post #115
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.

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

You're right - the reality of the world today is that open-sourced code is slurped up by AI companies, all questions of legality/ethics aside. But this was not the reality of the world that existed when the code was licensed and released. That is why it is easy to empathize with code authors who did not expect their code to be used in this manner.

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

#124

Post by salawat »

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…

Carmack is the same person comfortable with delaying talks of ethical treatment of a digital being, or what even constitutes one until in his eyes "they demonstrate the capabilities of a two year old" by which point, with the scale we distribute these models at, and the dependence we're pushing the world to adopt on them, we'll be well into the "implicit atrocity zone", and so far down the sunk cost trail, everyone will just decide to skip the ethics talk altogether if we wait that long. This is in spite of being a family man, which raises serious questions to me about how he must treat them. It does not surprise me at all the man has blindspots I could fit a semi-truck in.

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

#125

Post by pseudalopex »

Jare wrote: post #109
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…

I'm the same, I've seen some of my stuff pop up in the weirdest places and I was ok with it. But I understand and respect that people who published code under restrictive licenses may have a problem. The GPL is absolutely "NOT-a-free-gift" license, in both wording and spirit. If someone published something as MIT and doesn't like it being used for LLM training, yeah that person can only blame themselves. For GPL, it…

MIT license requires credit.

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

#126

Post by em-bee »

arjie wrote: post #108

Has anyone else noticed a cultural shift around monetization of output? I think there wasn't as much back when I first started using open-source programs, both as a user, and a small-time contributor for decades now. And I've noticed this on other things too. A short while ago, someone on Reddit pointed out that something on Google Maps was wrong and so I went and submitted a fix and told them how to and I received a…

yes, and no. there is profit and there is excessive profit. if i build something to make my linux experience better and share that with the world, and a few consultancies use that to make the linux experience for their customers better, then that is fine.

but if my tool becomes popular and a megacorp uses it to promote their own commercial closed source features alongside it, then that's excessive. that's one reason i like the AGPL, it reduced that. but in my opinion the ideal license is one that limits the freedom to smaller companies. maybe less than 100 or 500 employees, or less than some reasonable amount of revenue. (10 million per year? is that to high or to low?)

and even for those above, i don't want revshare, just pay me something adequate.

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

#127

Post by beastman82 »

skrebbel wrote: post #91

This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps and tacks on a license ("a gift"). That's of course great and awesome and super nice, but he's not been painstakingly and thanklessly maintaining some key linux component for the last 20 years or something like that. It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. That's nice! Bu…

The assumption here is that the people who maintain something in a painstaking manner did not intend people to take it and do whatever they want with it in accordance with its license?

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

#128

Post by bigstrat2003 »

skrebbel wrote: post #91

This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps and tacks on a license ("a gift"). That's of course great and awesome and super nice, but he's not been painstakingly and thanklessly maintaining some key linux component for the last 20 years or something like that. It's an entirely different thing; he made a thing, sold it, and then when he couldn't sell more of it, gave it away. That's nice! Bu…

> This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS, he just does code dumps and tacks on a license ("a gift").

That is, in fact, OSS. Open source does not mean, and has never meant, ongoing development nor development with the community.

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

#129

Post by liuliu »

Jare wrote: post #109
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…

I'm the same, I've seen some of my stuff pop up in the weirdest places and I was ok with it. But I understand and respect that people who published code under restrictive licenses may have a problem. The GPL is absolutely "NOT-a-free-gift" license, in both wording and spirit. If someone published something as MIT and doesn't like it being used for LLM training, yeah that person can only blame themselves. For GPL, it…

To clarify, GPL is not a free as in "free gift", but it is free as in "freedom".

The giving back part is strongly related to the "freedom", not related to whether you profit from it or not.

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

#130

Post by zzo38computer »

Isognoviastoma wrote: post #77

Most of FOSS is not a free gift, but asks for some form of repay. MIT asks for credit. GPL asks or credit and GPL'ing of things built atop. Unlicense is a free gift, but it is a minority. AI reproduces code while removing credit and copyleft from it and this is the problem.

I would want to use the license that does not ask for credit; the only requirement is that any further restrictions are not legally effective (except that, for practical reasons, it is allowed to be relicensed by GPL and AGPL (if you are able to follow all of the requirements of those licenses) in order to combine it with software having such licenses).
Post reply on HN