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

151–160 of 515 posts

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

#151

Post by sublinear »

dahrkael wrote: post #105
sublinear wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even the profit, but that there is often no new code being contributed. AI provides an offramp for people to disengage from social coding. People don't see the point because they still don't understand the difference between barely getting something to work and meaningfully improving that thing with new ideas.

if no code is contributed back then why is there an ongoing problem with massive amounts of PRs?

I didn't say slop. I said code.

The whole point of contributing to open source is to make decisions and the code is the medium.

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

#152

Post by layer8 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #128
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.

That’s just incorrect. “Open source” can mean the licensing as well as the development model [0]. It certainly has been associated with the development model since The Cathedral and the Bazaar [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_developme...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

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

#153

Post by dartharva »

em-bee wrote: post #126
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…

Who is stopping you from licensing your code that way then?

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

#154

Post by elteto »

jraph wrote: post #48
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.

> presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit That's not true. There are business models around open source, and many companies making money from open source work. (I'm only reacting to this specific part of your comment)

I think you are splitting hairs. Yes those models “exist”, if by exist you mean they have dual-licensing setups with different tiers (community, professional, etc).

The point is that most individuals who open source their code do so without expecting financial returns from it. In that context, whether Carmack has a $1 or $1e9 doesn’t make a difference.

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

#155

Post by stock_toaster »

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…

He also (presumably) doesn't have to worry as much about money as many OSS folks might, so dual licensing (as a means to keep working on the OSS version while also making ends meet) is likely not something he would consider.

He also started an AI company, right?

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

#156

Post by moogly »

john_strinlai wrote: post #27
moogly wrote: post #17

[flagged]

arguments are stronger without insults

Anyone who knows anything about Carmack knows that he has trouble empathizing. I don't even think it's his fault per se. I'm fairly sure he would actually agree with the assessment. His raw intelligence is sky-high.

And that is a big reason why he's making this post, is what I'm saying. It doesn't excuse him, but it's not surprising in the least.

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

#157

Post by _doctor_love »

nomel wrote: post #64
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #46

In my mind, AI is making a lot of engineers, including Carmack, seem fairly thoughtless. At the other moments in recent history where technology has displaced workers, labor has either had to fight some very bloody battles or had stronger labor organization. Tech workers are highly atomized now, and if you have to work to live, you're negotiating on your own. It seems like Carmack, like a lot of tech people, have for…

> in recent history where technology has displaced workers, labor has either had to fight some very bloody battles or had stronger labor organization what examples are you thinking of?

Most of 19th and early-20th century history, which is very much recent history.

Look up:

- The Haymarket Affair

- The Homestead Strike

- The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

- The Ludlow Massacre

- The Battle of Blair Mountain

You could also simply have taken the quote you were responding to and run it through a few LLMs to acquire those examples.

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

#158

Post by emiliobumachar »

pseudalopex wrote: post #86
3rodents wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah — isn’t he confusing the arguments against AI art? I’m against AI art because it is built on stealing the work of artists who did not consent to their work being trained on. I couldn’t care less about models trained on the open source software I released, because I released it to be used. edit: I’m assuming licenses were respected

> edit: I’m assuming licenses were respected Licenses were not respected. Most open source licenses require credit at least.

"BotXPTO has been trained with the entire internet circa 2026" is arguably attribution enough.

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

#159

Post by [deleted] »

layer8 wrote: post #152
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That’s just incorrect. “Open source” can mean the licensing as well as the development model [0]. It certainly has been associated with the development model since The Cathedral and the Bazaar [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_developme... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by Aurornis »

layer8 wrote: post #152
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That’s just incorrect. “Open source” can mean the licensing as well as the development model [0]. It certainly has been associated with the development model since The Cathedral and the Bazaar [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_developme... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

> “Open source” can mean

Keyword being "can"

The Wikipedia page you linked to refers to "Open-source software development (OSSD)" which implies that it's a different concept than "open source" by itself

Post reply on HN