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

291–300 of 515 posts

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

#291

Post by K0balt »

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…

That is, in fact, open source.

The community is not the license. The “open source” development community is a user of that kind of licensing.

You might better describe them as the open source maintainer community. I do see how ai impacts maintainers. But I’ve dumped hundreds of thousands of loc into the bucket with no hope that anyone would really maintain it. With AI it might become part of something useful. The license has many uses.

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

#292

Post by nayuki »

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…

Then by your definition, SQLite isn't open-source because it's a code dump with a license, but outsiders are not allowed to participate in shaping (the official copy of) the code.

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

#293

Post by gnabgib »

_doctor_love wrote: post #290
nomel wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

nomel couldn't have downvoted you (HN constraint), stop the attack. LMGTFY has a terrible rep on HN (I'd link a search, but you can easily find).

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

#294

Post by pseudalopex »

nickff wrote: post #283
lavela wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Reproduce is a definition of replicate. And LLMs reproduced code.

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

#295

Post by _doctor_love »

gnabgib wrote: post #293
_doctor_love wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

nomel couldn't have downvoted you (HN constraint), stop the attack. LMGTFY has a terrible rep on HN (I'd link a search, but you can easily find).

I think my definition and your definition of what constitutes an attack are fairly different. I’m offering feedback, not an attack.

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

#296

Post by [deleted] »

Aurornis wrote: post #178
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…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#297

Post by gensym »

torginus wrote: post #239

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 admins…

> 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.

This is a likelier outcome than the various utopian promises (no more cancer!) that AI boosters have been making.

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

#298

Post by [deleted] »

Aurornis wrote: post #178
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…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#299

Post by CamperBob2 »

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…

The thing is, nobody in China gives a rat's patoot about copyright. If we do, they win.

A compromise might have been possible, based on treaties engineered by the people who brought us the TPP, but nobody in the current US government is capable of negotiating anything like that or inclined to try. And it wouldn't exactly leave the rest of us better off if they did.

As a result, copyright is a zero-sum game from a US perspective, which matters because that's where the majority of leading research happens on the majority of available compute. Every inch of ground gained by Big IP comes at America's expense.

So they must lose, decisively and soon. Yes, the GPL will be lost as collateral damage. I'm OK with that. You will be, too.

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

#300

Post by CamperBob2 »

crote wrote: post #209
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.

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.

TIL I'm "rich and powerful." It doesn't feel any different, I've got to say.
Post reply on HN