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

401–410 of 515 posts

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

#401

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

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.

It's free, but it's a dependency.

I don't have sharp rhetoric for it, but I could find bipartisanship with right-wingers if they apply the "big government giving you welfare means they can take it away from you" to free web services.

OpenStreetMap is always behind on business data, but it has data that Google doesn't have, and it can't be taken away near as easily. And requires no account at all.

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

#402

Post by aeonfox »

bradleykingz wrote: post #378
Aeolun wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code gifted absolutely includes the time taken to write it.

case in point

As pointed out in the OP comment, it's basically 'money for jam' by the point he releases the source code:

> 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!

Carmack has extracted as much profit as he could care for from the source code. The releasing of the code is warm fuzzy feelings for zero cost, while keeping it closed source renders zero benefit to him.

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

#403

Post by gentleman11 »

CrossVR wrote: post #49

There's one elephant in the room that's not being addressed: Training an AI on GPL code and then having it generate equivalent code that is released under a closed source license seems like a good way to destroy the copy-left FOSS ecosystem.

IP laundering is a big part of AI, it's why big companies are so excited and workers / artists are less excited

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

#404

Post by muyuu »

I don't consider myself anti AI at all, but I find relicensing concrete solutions by supposed AI rewrites to be completely callous and an attack on human work. I don't think this can be just dismissed as being against using a particular technology.

From my PoV, pretending you can feed outputs, test suites or APIs from existing code and have AI "rewrite it" so you can call it your own is just theft. If instead you want to simply make it public domain, and this for some reason becomes acceptable, then it becomes the end of code as IP. The end of potentially any IP, which by the way I know plenty of people who would be happy about - "IP is theft" crowd - but which I think is unfair on those who had no real opportunity to build any equity on their work.

Precisely because I strongly believe in the potential of generative AI to eventually carry out entire projects with little technical guidance, I think it's important to establish the property of both what exists and what is achieved by humans with AI augmentation. This is a much more immediate concern than "runaway AI" or any form of singularity. As is today, generative AI has proven capable to replicate the results established projects with improvements (establishing how much is just parroted from the very replicated project and similar ones is academic in practice).

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

#405

Post by sph »

skybrian wrote: post #373
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #46

In my mind, AI is making a lot of engineers, including Carmack, seem fairly thoughtless. At the other moments in recent history where technology has displaced workers, labor has either had to fight some very bloody battles or had stronger labor organization. Tech workers are highly atomized now, and if you have to work to live, you're negotiating on your own. It seems like Carmack, like a lot of tech people, have for…

Software engineers have been automating away workers' jobs from the beginning. "Computer" was once a job title. There were armies of switchboard operators at the phone company. Companies had typing pools, mail clerks, and file clerks. We write shell scripts and development tools to automate our own jobs.

Most of us got into engineering for the means (programming computers) rather than the ends (automating away jobs).

I guess the people that have been rejoicing from the AI revolution are of the latter type.

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

#406

Post by FreakyT »

muyuu wrote: post #404

I don't consider myself anti AI at all, but I find relicensing concrete solutions by supposed AI rewrites to be completely callous and an attack on human work. I don't think this can be just dismissed as being against using a particular technology. From my PoV, pretending you can feed outputs, test suites or APIs from existing code and have AI "rewrite it" so you can call it your own is just theft. If instead you wan…

> From my PoV, pretending you can feed outputs, test suites or APIs from existing code and have AI "rewrite it" so you can call it your own is just theft.

If you replace “AI” with “a software engineering team”, does that change your argument? It seems like you’re essentially arguing that APIs should be copyrightable, which seems like a Bad Thing to me.

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

#407

Post by registeredcorn »

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 would like to offer a similar, but somewhat different opinion on one aspect of what you talked about regarding "revshare":

If I notice and issue on my own, and it bothers me enough / I feel that other users would benefit from it, I have no issue providing that information to the source maintainer for free.

If however, I am contacted by the maintainer in anyway requesting feedback, suggestions, or input (i.e. "Rate us on the app store!", "Email us with any problems you have.", etc.) I except any feedback I provide to be worth more than an unprompted message, and in turn, I expect something like a lower bill, a discounted rate on their store front, a credit in their auth page, or some other kind of material gain from it.

Basically, if I am being solicited and prompted to do something, it wasn't my idea in the firsr place, so it ought to be worth my time to do so. They have already gone to the effort of asking, so they (presumably) find value in it. I ought be compensated for that value.

Using Google as an example: one of the few products of theirs I like is Opinion Rewards. They actually pay you (in store credit) for responding to their surveys. It's a fair trade off. They ask me basic habits related to shopping, etc. I get a 25 cents or so every time I respond.

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

#408

Post by necovek »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #222
crote wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 amount of value Google Maps has given me is far beyond what I'd be willing to pay in actual dollars.

Agreed: the opportunity to be taken to a rocky dirt road through swamp grounds on the outskirts of a small town in Greece is something I'd never get if not for Google Maps :)

(and many similar stories)

I only use Google Maps for their live traffic info, which they so nicely collect out of majority of Android users driving around. I'd love it if OSM apps could leverage that information for navigation too.

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

#409

Post by lelanthran »

amarant wrote: post #256
lelanthran wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

It's not a matter of interpretation - any derivative product is also GPL, and if you don't want the derivative product to be GPL, then don't use the original product.

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

#410

Post by safety1st »

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…

This cultural shift exists and it will intensify as long as consumer prices and cost of living continue to rise at the same time corporate profit margins do. This is a simple, easy link to make, pretty much everyone's now aware and has stopped buying the excuses. Consolidation and an increase in straight up, unpunished criminal monopoly and cartel activity within corporate America have given rise to this new culture. Luigi Mangione will not be the last of his kind.
Post reply on HN