John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists

Post by Isognoviastoma » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 7:58 PM UTC

skeledrew wrote: post #101

I said it just recently[0] and I'll say it again: those who're big on open source (or at least copyleft) should be jumping hard on the AI opportunity. The core purpose of copyleft is to ensure the freedom of users to do whatever they want with the covered works, chained ad infinitum. Letting AI at said works (and more) now means even more freedom, as now users can trivially (compared to previously) update that code t…

Post by skeledrew » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:01 PM UTC

radlad wrote: post #123

skeledrew wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by leni536 » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:03 PM UTC

Isognoviastoma wrote: post #141

skeledrew wrote: post #101

I said it just recently[0] and I'll say it again: those who're big on open source (or at least copyleft) should be jumping hard on the AI opportunity. The core purpose of copyleft is to ensure the freedom of users to do whatever they want with the covered works, chained ad infinitum. Letting AI at said works (and more) now means even more freedom, as now users can trivially (compared to previously) update that code t…

Copyleft is copyright held in smart way. Nobody can take code under GPL and make its _copy_ proprietary because it would be violation of copyright. In the other thread you argued that AI output is not copyrighted. Do you think I can take proprietary code and lauder through AI to get a non-copyrighted copy of it, then modify to my needs? How can I obtain the proprietary code legally in the first place?

Post by logicchains » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:04 PM UTC

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…

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:05 PM UTC

dartharva wrote: post #144

sumeno wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"in accordance with its license" is the key part that's missing with LLMs. The licenses are completely ignored.

> The licenses are completely ignored. Where and when? In cases where LLM coding assistants reproduce copyleft code in someone's work assignment? The responsibility in those would be on the user, not on AI.