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

231–240 of 515 posts

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

#231

Post by layer8 »

Aurornis wrote: post #226
layer8 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sour…

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

It looks like we’re in agreement then.

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

#232

Post by fwip »

bombcar wrote: post #38
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…

It's interesting that the "natural reaction" to releasing an open source project, have it be successful, and have some Amazon "steal" it (leave the argument aside, that's how people will feel, big company makes money using the gift) is somehow worse than if you work for Big Company, they pay you, and then later use your code to make billions.

Seems pretty understandable to me. In the former, you work on something hoping that real people will find it useful. In the latter, you're explicitly doing work for a paycheck.

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

#233

Post by throwaway613746 »

tuna74 wrote: post #31
amarant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the case, and even the point, of all open source, even before AI? What's the point of a gift if the receiver isn't allowed to benefit/profit from it? For instance, do you think Linus is upset that ~90% of all internet servers are running his os, for profit, without paying him? Of course he isn't, that was the point of the whole thing! Are you upset Netflix, Google, and heck, even Microsoft are raking in mi…

Linus T explicitly licensed Linux under a license that allows anyone to run it but requires people who modify modifications to share those modifications.

[dead]

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

#234

Post by ohrus »

jjj123 wrote: post #228

“My million+ open source LOC were always intended as a gift to the world” That’s great for John, but not everyone’s open source projects are meant as a gift to the world for anyone and everyone to use. That he cannot understand that others think differently than him is disappointing.

Even if not an explicit gift, isn't all OSS implicitly a gift? I'm having trouble understanding the practical difference.

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

#235

Post by nickjj »

I really admire Carmack and followed everything id software since the beginning.

They really did put a lot of things out in the open back then but I don't think that can be compared to current day.

Doom and Quake 1 / 2 / 3 were both on the cusp of what computing can do (a new gaming experience) while also being wildly fun. Low competition, unique games and no AI is a MUCH different world than today where there's high competition, not so unique games and AI digesting everything you put out to the world only to be sold to someone else to be your competitor.

I'm not convinced what worked for id back then would work today. I'm convinced they would figure out what would work today but I'm almost certain it would be different.

I've seen nothing but personal negative outcomes from AI over the last few years. I had a whole business selling tech courses for 10 years that has evaporated into nothing. I open source everything I do since day 1, thousands of stars on some projects, people writing in saying nice things but I never made millions, not even close. Selling courses helped me keep the lights on but that has gone away.

It's easy to say open source contributions are a gift and deep down I do believe that, but when you don't have infinite money like Carmack and DHH the whole "middle class" of open source contributors have gotten their life flipped upside down from AI. We're being forced out of doing this because it's hard to spend a material amount of time on this sort of thing when you need income at the same time to survive in this world.

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

#236

Post by charcircuit »

nitwit005 wrote: post #212
charcircuit wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone wants just the former they shouldn't make it open source.

How will someone contribute back without the code?

Code can still be published and merge requests can still be handled even if the code isn't under an open source license. As a prime example check out Unreal Engine. One of the most popular game engines that powers many AAA games and cinema today. They are not open source, but they actively take outside contributions on GitHub. Though unlike what the parent comment is saying Epic can afford to pay people to work on the project instead of having all of the work done for free.

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

#237

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

gensym wrote: post #14

I find it pretty simple: - OSS is valuable for decentralizing power and influence - AI as it is being developed is likely to centralize it

AI is written by a for profit company whose long term objective is more profit.

I’m not against AI, I’m against the inevitable enshittification which will screw us all over, one way or another.

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

#238

Post by eqvinox »

I mean, yeah, sure, I can see that for open source.

And GPL'd code is not open source, it's free software. The license implies the code cannot find its way into non-GPL codebases, and you can't profit*1 from the code. (But you can profit from services on top, e.g. support services, or paid feature development.)

Now the question is, is that intersection set all GPL developers?

*1 note profit would imply distribution

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

#239

Post by torginus »

I have a secret fear about AI - that at one point when AI models get good enough, AI companies will no longer give you the source these tools generate - you'll get the artifacts (perhaps hosted on a subscription website), but you won't get the code.

Tools like CC already push a workflow where you're separated from the code and treat the model as a 'wishing well'. I think the fact that we get the source is just adminssion that these models are not good enough to really take our jobs (yet).

I wonder how much a gift AI companies think their models (and even outputs of their models) are, considering their weights are proprietary and their training methods even moreso.

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

#240

Post by k12sosse »

hamdingers wrote: post #166
radlad wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If they saw the wind they wouldn't have chosen OpenAI
Post reply on HN