In a way, doesn't AI violate non-commercial open source licenses because it takes the code and then profits from it but in a way that is so opaque that nobody can prove it?
John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
421–430 of 515 posts
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#422So, big tech takes the "gift" of passionate developers and: 1. Use them to threaten their jobs (and so many other jobs like lawyers, artists, tech writers...). 2. Hoard hardware, causing prices to raise to absurd levels and effectively making it harder for passionate developers to tinker at home. 3. Set up circular deals between themselves to raise stock prices, creating a bubble that will make 2008 seem like a joke.…
He's anything but stupid, he is also human, makes mistakes (like you) and the last time I checked he was working on AI for years now so, yeah, he's probably going to gravitate towards "AI good" instead of "AI took my job".
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#423Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Or maybe they find the idea of computers that can think just as exciting as you found programming at the start of your career?
I never found the idea of a thinking computer exciting, just as I don’t find the idea of a thinking screwdriver exciting.
These days I see the ultimate goal to create a super-intelligence to be blasphemous, if not existentially dangerous and I am afraid by how nonchalant everybody is about it.
I quite enjoy a reality where humans and biological life are in control of their destiny, but it’s apparently become a taboo opinion around these parts.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#425Earlier 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.
It’s not open source in the way anyone thinks about the term. He isn’t maintaining free software in the open
It is open source, there are just many different ways to do open source code. One example is Lua, which is released as open source but the project is not open - they will not accept contributions from others.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#426I 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…
One of the changes I have made in recent years is to move to the unlicence. I am ok with people using my code. I'm not ok with people saying that other people shouldn't be allowed to use my code.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm guessing that happened 8 years ago and you're still mad at it. I also have an experience where their map data was sightly wrong and I got into an argument with my mother.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#428I 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…
so what?
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is reading source code using it? Can you restrict people from doing that? What actually makes a derivative work.
Can I put up a sign with a fact on it, can people who see the sign not use the fact unless they agree with my terms and conditions? That certainly would be the case if we went wiTh some sense of derived.
The law needs specifics for a reason, if it were down to what each individual felt it means in the moment it would be useless.
The most recent legal findings have said that training on legally acquired data does not violate copyright.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe they find the idea of computers that can think just as exciting as you found programming at the start of your career?
I never found the idea of a thinking computer exciting, just as I don’t find the idea of a thinking screwdriver exciting. These days I see the ultimate goal to create a super-intelligence to be blasphemous, if not existentially dangerous and I am afraid by how nonchalant everybody is about it. I quite enjoy a reality where humans and biological life are in control of their destiny, but it’s apparently become a taboo…
Good for you. But other people are allowed to find things exciting that you don't.
Personally I'd find the idea of thinking screwdriver... Well, weird. But definitely amazing and exciting.