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

451–460 of 515 posts

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

#451

Post by vrganj »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #313
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…

Avoiding every corporation that does stuff you disagree with just isn't feasible. All we can do is weigh their business model and other practices with the value we get out of it. People on Reddit who also have a problem with Reddit are obviously on Reddit. That is tautological. It doesn't mean they aren't avoiding other companies for similar reasons, which wouldn't make them a hypocrite either.

No ethical consumption under capitalism

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

#452

Post by seba_dos1 »

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 has nothing to do with monetization of output and everything to do with power balance. Google can take your contributions and do whatever they want with it, including banning you from using the data you contributed ever again. This doesn't happen with OpenStreetMap for example, which can be and is being monetized just fine as well, because all contributors have equal rights to the data.

It's the same thing as with CLAs with copyright assignment in FLOSS.

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

#453

Post by sumeno »

nickff wrote: post #282
pseudalopex wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

LLMs are not people. They do not learn the way people do.

Even if they did, if someone memorized copywritten code and then typed it back out that would still be a copywrite violation

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

#454

Post by wolvesechoes »

Plywood1 wrote: post #418

So, 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 is not stupid. He is just like most tech people - ignorant of history, sociology and matters of policy.

For decades STEM people asked why we even need humanities when we have science and technology.

This is why.

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

#455

Post by Sammi »

verisimi wrote: post #450
bcrosby95 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoiding every corporation that does stuff you disagree with just isn't feasible. All we can do is weigh their business model and other practices with the value we get out of it. People on Reddit who also have a problem with Reddit are obviously on Reddit. That is tautological. It doesn't mean they aren't avoiding other companies for similar reasons, which wouldn't make them a hypocrite either.

> Avoiding every corporation that does stuff you disagree with just isn't feasible. That would be all of them. They are all dirty. The idea of 'voting with your dollar' is ridiculous - they are all terrible, so there's nothing to vote for. But yes, modern life requires that we engage with their nonsense, no need to think of the interaction as anything more that begrudging extraction.

At least all publicly traded companies are 100% completely psychopathic. It's just what they are. Their objective to create shareholder value just trumps everything else.

With private companies you have whatever morals the owners have. It's a very mixed bag.

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

#456

Post by seba_dos1 »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #446
Aurornis wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that the big tech companies aren't holding up their end of the traditional social contract. This analogy feels too strained. Google gives away Maps, Gmail, and other products for free. A little UI widget inviting users to submit fixes is hardly an onerous demand. > and they will of course log your location history and sell it to the highest bidder. Google does not do this, no matter how many times th…

Neither Google Maps nor Gmail are given away for free. Both products generate vast amounts of revenue.

It doesn't even matter that it generates revenue, they could "give it away for free" and yet earn vast amounts of money with it just fine - but they never gave it away to anyone! They just let you use it "for free" right now, but could change their mind at a whim and stop, or even ban you specifically because they just feel like it. They're the only owners of data you contribute and it's not being given away, but strictly guarded.

Compare with OSM, which actually is being "given away for free" even though people still do monetize it. They just do it on the same terms as anyone else could.

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

#457

Post by jamesnorden »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #353
socalgal2 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 not free. The cost is the information about where you are and what you're looking for basically at all time.

I hate when my navigation app knows where I am!

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

#458

Post by casey2 »

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.

>I'm using google maps for free!!! That's HUGE benefit to me.

Is it? You are doing labor (usage) that harms yourself (brain damage). The fact that google makes money isn't irrelevant, it's the whole point.

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

#459

Post by crakhamster01 »

I can maybe see this argument being valid for OSS - as Carmack says, by nature it should be "no strings attached".

I don't think that's all anti-AI activists care about though. Honestly, I would say most activists don't talk about the use of OSS? The most prominent anti-AI sentiment seems to come from creatives. Artists, musicians, designers, etc.

They didn't publish their works with the same notion as OSS developers, but it was scraped up by corporations all the same. In many cases, these works were protected by copyright law and used anyways.

To me that feels like the equivalent of training on "private repos", which Carmack would call a violation [1].

[1] https://x.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/2031769354401091988

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

#460

Post by snozolli »

Aurornis wrote: post #255
acuozzo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Has anyone else noticed a cultural shift around monetization of output? I think it's simply due to the economy being in the shitter for the non-"Capital Ownership Class". 1977-2007 was generally a good time in the US if you survived by trading your time/knowledge/expertise for a wage as most people do. This is also the time in which F/OSS came into existence. If you had a decent job during that time, then the futur…

> 1977-2007 was generally a good time in the US if you survived by trading your time/knowledge/expertise for a wage as most people do. This is also the time in which F/OSS came into existence. FOSS came into existence during this time because computers and the internet became available, not because it was a specific economic situation. > If you had a decent job during that time, then the future looked bright and you…

Tech salaries today are higher than they were back then

Maybe at FAANGs or in the hottest spaces like AI, but I've been looking and listed salaries for senior positions are now lower than what I got paid my first year out of college in 1998, adjusted for inflation. My first job was for a small hardware manufacturer, not a Microsoft or a Google, and not in the Bay Area or Seattle.

Post reply on HN