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

281–290 of 515 posts

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

#281

Post by zahlman »

arjie wrote: post #245
Aurornis wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 barrage of comments about working for free for a corporation that's making money off me. Did you respond by asking them how Reddit makes money? The anti-corporate mentality isn't new, but it does surface in different ways and communities over time. The Redd…

Haha, that's funny. I didn't think of it at the time and I was more surprised than anything. By the way, I have had your comments highlighted for a while now and I've never regretted it. Good stuff.

... There's a highlighting feature?

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

#282

Post by nickff »

pseudalopex wrote: post #252
nickff wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Developers are permitted to learn from open source code with restrictive copyrights, and apply those lessons to developing other software which does not comply with the copyright of their 'example'.

As an aside, I do believe that LLM trainers are ignoring and violating many licenses, but open-source software is not a clear example of a violation.

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

#283

Post by nickff »

lavela wrote: post #229
nickff wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I fail to see how mass scale reproduction of copyrighted code isn't a form of distribution.

Replication is not the same as reproduction; I can replicate an API without violating someone's license or copyright (which I would by reproducing their work).

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

#284

Post by uoaei »

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" means the source code is open to the public for reading and copying. Licenses have complicated the idealistic definition to restrict copying, but that is only within the context of taking credit (ie implicit relicensure). The only winning move is not to play the game at all.

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

#285

Post by Wowfunhappy »

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

You and Bigstrat2003 are arguing a technicality, and you're technically correct, but in context I think that's somewhat beside the point. Skrebbel and Layer8 are focused on the cultural associations of "open source" development, and this mismatch is causing everyone to talk past each other.

The original post in this thread was:

> 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! But it's not what most people who are deep into open source mean by the term.

Skrebbel probably shouldn't have said that Carmack "doesn't really do OSS", but what they clearly meant was, Carmack doesn't participate in the sort of community development as the Linux kernel or Apache or whatever.

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

#286

Post by [deleted] »

_doctor_love wrote: post #266
_doctor_love wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

lol this got downvoted - sorry that I studied history!

[deleted]

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

#287

Post by nomel »

_doctor_love wrote: post #266
_doctor_love wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

lol this got downvoted - sorry that I studied history!

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

Wasn't me, but probably because this was unnecessary and rude. An example, or a link, when a claim is made, is always nice, turns a hollow claim into something informative. Better signal to noise is nice.

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

#288

Post by joquarky »

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.

That's because licenses are an abstract complexity tacked on to a simple material reality in order "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts".

Just like many cultural rules, they keep growing in complexity until they reach a phase change where they become ignored because they have become too complicated.

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

#289

Post by joquarky »

SllX wrote: post #224
nickff wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well no, it’s about legally gating the ability to copy so the original author doesn’t have to compete in the same market to sell his own book with every other bloke with a printing press and a copy of the book. Everything else is an addendum.

No, it's to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

The current implementation has recently become obsolete.

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

#290

Post by _doctor_love »

nomel wrote: post #287
_doctor_love wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol this got downvoted - sorry that I studied history!

> You could also simply have taken the quote you were responding to and run it through a few LLMs to acquire those examples. Wasn't me, but probably because this was unnecessary and rude. An example, or a link, when a claim is made, is always nice, turns a hollow claim into something informative. Better signal to noise is nice.

That’s funny.

I find it pretty rude to ask a question on a fairly well-documented historical topic that you could also very easily have found out with a simple Google search. Back in the day, we used to reply to people, “Let me Google that for you,” when someone asked such a low-effort question.

Your original reply strongly indicated that you were skeptical and questioning the user’s claim. There is a very large body of historical research documenting all of these things.

Post reply on HN