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

201–210 of 515 posts

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

#201

Post by losvedir »

stock_toaster wrote: post #155
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?

> He also started an AI company, right?

Yes, but IIRC it's different than the current "download the internet" large language model approach. More like learning to play video games or something.

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

#202

Post by acuozzo »

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…

> Has anyone else noticed a cultural shift around monetization of output?

I think it's simply due to the economy being in the shitter for the non-"Capital Ownership Class".

1977-2007 was generally a good time in the US if you survived by trading your time/knowledge/expertise for a wage as most people do. This is also the time in which F/OSS came into existence.

If you had a decent job during that time, then the future looked bright and you didn't think twice about giving some of your leisure time away for free.

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

#203

Post by toast0 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #137
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…

> If you take my gift and profit, it doesn't hurt me My opinion is that it actually hurts everyone when the open source commons are looted for private profits

How much do you think people would pay for this patch?

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/1320

If you had to pay for it seperately, would you include it in anything?

And yet, including it everywhere helps people with clients that can't be upgraded. Maybe less now, rsa_dhe is not deployed so much and hopefully windows 8 is also not deployed so much.

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

#204

Post by hn_acc1 »

rconti wrote: post #135
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…

Yeah, I think the paradigm has shifted. There's a perception that, while these companies have always profited off of our inputs, that we both benefitted. We contributed to a public good, they provided the platform, and profited off that platform. Now it feels like the public good is being diminished (enshittification) as they keep turning the "profit" knob, trying to squeeze more and more marginal dollars from the go…

Yes, this 100x.

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

#205

Post by nickff »

pseudalopex wrote: post #184
nickff wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no contradiction. Open source software licenses allow use without conditions. Ad blocker use does not distribute the modified web pages.

I have not seen any evidence that LLMs ‘distribute’ modified software, though they do seem capable of replicating it.

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

#206

Post by nickff »

technothrasher wrote: post #193
nickff wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to be conflating copyright with access rights. Two very different things. Regardless of your feelings on either, there is no contradiction in holding different views on them.

Copyright is all about gating access, as media rights holders for sports well know.

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

#208

Post by rurp »

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…

I've never publicly scolded someone for doing free work for tech monopolies but I do understand the impulse. The problem is that it's a completely one-sided relationship, and there are perfectly legitimate concerns about how the biggest tech companies are using their wealth and power. At this point I doubt much of anyone would expect a large tech company to go out of its way to lose money in order to support human communities. They take what they can, and ruthlessly kill products and services the minute they think it helps their bottom line.

Google and others don't need to rely on free volunteers, but it's certainly more profitable for them. Does Google making an extra $10B/year make the world a better place? Maybe, I don't know, but it's not crazy to think the answer is no.

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

#209

Post by crote »

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.

Great! So I assume it is now Completely Fine to rip Netflix / Hulu / Disney+ / whatever and share it with everyone I know?

Copyright isn't "done", copyright has just been restricted to the rich and powerful. AI has essentially made it legal to steal from anyone who isn't rich enough to sue you - which in the case of the main AI companies means everyone except a handful of giants.

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

#210

Post by john_strinlai »

moogly wrote: post #156
john_strinlai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

true/false and insult/not insult are two different axes.
Post reply on HN