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

251–260 of 515 posts

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

#251

Post by [deleted] »

skrebbel wrote: post #247
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.

I agree but he's arguing with people who's personal attachment to their OSS work goes a lot deeper than "I did a few code dumps back in the day". It was stupid of me to say that he does "not really do OSS" because that opened the door for all kinds of definition arguments. That's a super tired discussion and it wasn't really my point. I can't edit anymore but I meant to say something like "doesn't do OSS in the same…

[deleted]

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

#252

Post by pseudalopex »

nickff wrote: post #205
pseudalopex wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The view LLMs should respect open source software licenses is not for replication alone. Models and generated code are derived from training data.

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

#253

Post by joecool1029 »

The foundation to which all of these licenses are tied to will likely be dissolved. Words/code had value in the old system. But now it's cheap to generate, way cheaper than hiring legions of writers/developers to write it. When it was a valuable asset lobbyists spent to protect it under law. I want you to think as you read this comment, do you think Disney would rather pay unionized workers or abolish copyright law and use other (trademark) mechanisms to protect their IP? A decade or so ago, this kind of thought would be crazy but things have changed.

So we have this foundation, this anchor which is copyright law that gives us any power to have a say about whether code should be accessible. Without that, the licenses are empty words, no weight. No remedy. My concern is less that opensource code gets used by commercial interests; I would rather they use libraries that are maintained especially in contexts of security... my concern is that we move toward only having devices we can keep as long as the company supports them and/or is solvent. If we lose the foundation that everything was built on (copyright law), it becomes impossible to audit or support things on our own. Everything is a rental/subscription.

I don't often just come out and make predictions, this is one I think we're moving toward though as the sea becomes more muddied by regurgitated works. The major AI companies are unabashedly pirating works, there are powerful rights-holders that could be sending armies of lawyers after them, like the big publishing houses... but is it happening? Or are they sitting back and letting the tech companies do R&D for what will be their new business models moving forward.

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

#255

Post by Aurornis »

acuozzo wrote: post #202
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 futur…

> 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.

FOSS came into existence during this time because computers and the internet became available, not because it was a specific economic situation.

> 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.

This seems like rewriting history. Tech salaries today are higher than they were back then. There was even a whole lawsuit against companies caught suppressing wages during that time. Tech compensation went up significantly after the period you cited.

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

#256

Post by amarant »

lelanthran wrote: post #114
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…

You dont know what GPL is? It's not an unconditional gift, it's got strings attached. AI training on GPL works is basically IP laundering, you're taking the product without paying the asking prices.

I do know what it is, I've even read the licence in full!

What specific paragraph in the GPL prohibits training of AI on it? I guess it might be a matter of interpretation, but by my reading, it is allowed.

Ps. In the future, try to refrain from using demeaning rethorical questions like the one this comment starts with, it only serves to foster toxicity. Please and thank you Ds.

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

#257

Post by bayindirh »

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

This is what GitHub promised years ago. Showing repositories where similar code is present so you can guess the license and use appropriate outputs.

I’m not sure whether this is implemented or not since I don’t use generative AI for coding.

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

#258

Post by Aurornis »

crote wrote: post #188
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 received a barrage of comments about working for free for a corporation that's making money off me The problem is that the big tech companies aren't holding up their end of the traditional social contract. I like to think of the wider open source community as one giant group project. Everyone contributes what they can, and in turn they can benefit from the work everyone else has done. The work you do goes towards…

> The problem is that the big tech companies aren't holding up their end of the traditional social contract.

This analogy feels too strained.

Google gives away Maps, Gmail, and other products for free. A little UI widget inviting users to submit fixes is hardly an onerous demand.

> and they will of course log your location history and sell it to the highest bidder.

Google does not do this, no matter how many times this myth gets repeated online.

I think a lot of people in the Reddit and Reddit-adjacent world believe this is true because it gets repeated so much, but it's not true.

Ironically, Reddit makes money by packaging up user's content and selling it to 3rd parties.

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

#260

Post by markus_zhang »

John Carmack and all 10x programmers are going to benefit a lot from the advancement of AI, while we the ordinary programmers are going to suffer in the mid-long term. I mean he is one of the guys I look up to, but I don't want to lose my job.

Regarding OSS, I'll say what I already said a few days ago: OSS people should take care of their financials first, and then do OSS without anxiety. Also, if you do OSS, expect it to be abused in any imaginable and unimaginable way. The "license" is a joke when enough dollars are involved. If you hate that, don't do OSS. No one forces you to do it. I appreciate what you did, but please take care of yourselves first.

Actually, now that I thought about it, every successful OSS people that I look up to took care of their financials first. Many of them also did it in Carmack's way -- get a cool project, release it, don't linger, go to the next one while others improve it. Maybe you should do it, too.

Post reply on HN