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

331–340 of 515 posts

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

#331

Post by cmrdporcupine »

Not everybody means the same thing by open source, it's always been a rather bad umbrella phrase for a lot of different things (and I'm old enough to remember when it first became current).

Whether you agree with them or not the free software / copyleft advocates mean something very different from what Carmack is getting at and always have before or after AI. It has always been an anti-corporate position and it's not difficult to reconcile in my mind at all?

That said, I'm personally a free software advocate, and in favour of the GPL as a license but I use "AI" (LLMs) (critically). To help make [A]GPL software. I kinda feel by copylefting the output, in some sense I'm helping to right the wrong.

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

#332

Post by alwaysbeconsing »

gruez wrote: post #9
OSaMaBiNLoGiN wrote: post #4

I think one of the more prominent issues folks take with mass training on OSS is that the companies doing it are now profiting for having done it. In his follow-up post he talks about him open sourcing old games as a gift, and he doesn't much care how people receive that gift, just that they do. He doesn't acknowledge that Anthropic, OpenAI, etc, are profiting while the original authors are not. The original authors…

>I think one of the more prominent issues folks take with mass training on OSS is that the companies doing it are now profiting for having done it. What makes this more objectionable than profiting off open source projects by using it directly? eg. tech giants using linux as a server OS, rather than having to pay microsoft thousands per server for a windows server license? With the original GPL, they don't even have…

Competition. Using my open source projects directly doesn't kill my employment. AI company explicitly say they want to put me out of work, using my code aginst me.

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

#333

Post by CamperBob2 »

anonymousab wrote: post #119
CamperBob2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true; e.g. https://allenai.org/open-models . For my own purposes, open weights are 95% as good, to be honest. I understand that not everyone will agree with that. As long as training takes hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of somebody else's compute, we're always going to be at the big companies' mercy to some extent. At some point they will start to restrict access, as you suggest, and that's the point wher…

> and that's the point where the righteous indignation displayed by the neo-Luddites will be necessary and helpful At that point it will be far, far, faaaaar too late. > Don't waste your passion defending legacy copyright interests The companies training big models are actively respecting copyright from anyone big enough to actually fight back, and soaking everyone else. They are actively furthering the entrenchment…

They are actively furthering the entrenchment of Big IP Law.

China: lol

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

#334

Post by anon-3988 »

socalgal2 wrote: post #215
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…

I have the same attitude as Carmack. I have several libraries and sites I maintain as well as contributing to several popular open source projects. I still have his attitude about this. Both my open source and my ongoing maintenance are gifts. I'm also free to stop giving when I don't feel like it.

There's more to open source than just the code or output, it is also the community. There's apparenticeship, sharing of knowledge, sense of comradery, supporting each other, etc.

My day job uses a lot of open source libraries and projects, and do you know what we do when we fix things? We fork internally and don't upstream any patches.

Do you not see a loss here?

With LLMs, there's even LESS reason to keep up with upstream. We would probably just ask LLM to keep up with the changes commit by commit.

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

#335

Post by johnisgood »

socalgal2 wrote: post #230
rurp wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

It not a completely one sided relationship. I'm using google maps for free!!! That's HUGE benefit to me. That google makes money from it is irrelevant to me. They're paying me by providing a free service that I get tons of usage out all the time.

Yeah, and you made a fix for both yourself, and presumably other people as well. Additionally, some people submit fixes for recognition, too.

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

#336

Post by arjie »

zahlman wrote: post #281
arjie wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I just have a Chrome extension. It's not a HN-native feature. Link in profile if you're curious.

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

#337

Post by johnisgood »

toast0 wrote: post #24
OSaMaBiNLoGiN wrote: post #4

I think one of the more prominent issues folks take with mass training on OSS is that the companies doing it are now profiting for having done it. In his follow-up post he talks about him open sourcing old games as a gift, and he doesn't much care how people receive that gift, just that they do. He doesn't acknowledge that Anthropic, OpenAI, etc, are profiting while the original authors are not. The original authors…

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…

That sounds fun. I am trying to find potential employers who need me to write or fix code, and ideally contribute upstream along with it. Any ideas where to start? I am thinking something "chill". I am trying to avoid large corporations.

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

#338

Post by aeonfox »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #285
Aurornis wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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 li…

More succinctly, Carmack only contributes his code to OSS, but not his time, and shouldn't impose his values on the wider community that contribute both.

> technically correct, but in context I think that's somewhat beside the point

Talking past people to argue on semantics and pedantry is a HN pastime. It may even be it's primary function.

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

#339

Post by charcircuit »

nitwit005 wrote: post #249
charcircuit wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

They let people contribute by making the source open, which also lets the AI companies use it as training data. The question was how would you take contributions without letting the training happen. Edit: typo

Epic makes you agree to a legal agreement before getting access to the source so you could attempt to restrict the source via contract law. The issue is if it does escape to the public, contract law can't save you and copyright law allows for training on it.
Post reply on HN