John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by sumeno » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:14 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.

Are you doing a full search of every GPL licensed repository every time you use an LLM to ensure that it isn't giving you GPL licensed code? That doesn't seem reasonable

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

#162

Post by layer8 » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:14 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #160

layer8 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m saying that “open source” can mean both things. The parent was arguing that it only means the licensing. I’m not arguing that it always means the development model.

> 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

By that logic, “open source licensing” would also imply a different concept than “open source” by itself.

Note that the Wikipedia page for “open-source software” [2] states: “Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite”. That would really only be the case in the context of open-source development.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

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

#163

Post by SirensOfTitan » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:14 PM UTC

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #97

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…

> Even a small % of layoffs of the US white collar work force will crash the economy, as our economy is extremely levered. A major economic crash as the only consequence would be the good ending. The real societal risk here is that software development is not just a field of primarily white men, it was one of the last few jobs that could reliably get one homeownership & an (upper) middle class life. And the current U…

I totally agree. I've written about this topic a lot on this site, probably most recently here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47115597

The US is built on-top of a high value service economy. And what we're doing is allowing a couple companies to come in, devalue US service labor, and capture a small fraction of the prior value for themselves on top of models trained on copyrighted material without permission. Of course, to your point: things can get a lot worse than that. I honestly don't think a lot of executives even know how much they're shooting themselves in the foot because they seem unable to think beyond the first order.

I also see a lot of top 1% famous or semi-famous engineers totally ignoring the economic realities of this tech, people like: Carmack, Simon Willison, Mitchell Hashimoto, Steve Yegg, Salvatore Sanfilippo and others. They are blind to the suffering these technologies could cause even in the event it is temporary. Sure, it's fun, but weekend projects are irrelevant when people cannot put food on the table. It's been really something to watch them and a lot of my friends from FAANG totally ignore this side. It is why identity matters when people make arguments.

I also think I'm insulated partially from the likely initial waves of fallout here by nature of a lucky and successful career. I would love it if the influential engineers I mentioned above stopped acting like high modernists and started taking the social consequences of this technology seriously. They could change a lot more minds than I could. And they could ensure through that advocacy for labor that we see the happiest ending with respect to rolling out LLMs.

Unfortunately I don't really believe labor has much teeth anymore, and tech will wake up too late to do anything about it.

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

#164

Post by patagurbon » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:15 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.

In reproducing code that requires the license be reproduced alongside it.

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

#165

Post by nickff » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:15 PM UTC

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

Isn't Carmack just employing the 'Cathedral' type of 'Open Source'?

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

#166

Post by hamdingers » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:15 PM UTC

radlad wrote: post #118

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.

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 lic…

> Just ask Disney.

Disney saw which way the wind is blowing and invested over a billion into OpenAI

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

#167

Post by dartharva » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:16 PM UTC

sumeno wrote: post #161

dartharva wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are you doing a full search of every GPL licensed repository every time you use an LLM to ensure that it isn't giving you GPL licensed code? That doesn't seem reasonable

Why not? Up until a year or two ago LLM pair programmers weren't even a thing.

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

#168

Post by layer8 » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:18 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #165

layer8 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't Carmack just employing the 'Cathedral' type of 'Open Source'?

The “cathedral” model refers to closed-source development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_developme...

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

#169

Post by daemonologist » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:18 PM UTC

bloblaw wrote: post #139

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 sounds to me like the "No True Scotsman" argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman I break down what you said as: "Sure, he's released code with an open-source license, but that's not real open source in the sense that matters." I happen to disagree. OSS is OSS. AGPL is OSS. MIT is Open Source. Unlicense is OSS.

The point is not that it's not "real" open source, the point is that he has less interaction with the big part of the open source ecosystem which is feeling the brunt of the downsides of AI, namely, giant useless bug reports and PRs.

(I do agree that it's still OSS even if you never maintain it or anything.)

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

#170

Post by nickff » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:18 PM UTC

sumeno wrote: post #131

beastman82 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

It seems to be a common view on HN that licenses and conditional access to websites should be ignored (i.e. WRT ad-blockers), but also that licenses on Open-Source Software repositories should be respected (i.e. WRT LLM training). I believe that holding these contradictory views is common, but the conflict would need to be resolved to come to a conclusion on how to proceed with LLM training.