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

461–470 of 515 posts

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

#461

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

_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…

This is a conversation forum, so it's natural for people to ask questions of each other. Sure, we could, in principle, ask Google, or ChatGPT for everything, but then why have an online conversation at all?

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

#462

Post by yndoendo »

supern0va wrote: post #99
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. I've noticed this thing where people who have decided they are strongly "anti-AI" will just parrot talking points without really thinking them through, and this is a common one. Someone made this argument to me recently, but when probed, they were also against open weight…

I am anti-AI art and will never fund any thing created from AI-art. It lacks emotion. It only can copy and attempt to duplicate existing art.

The time taken to make art is therapeutic to the artist and is expressed in their end product. It helps them keep balance in their lives, calm them, and fight depression.

Everything I have seen from AI-art is dis-formed from reality. AI-art will enhance body dis-morphia in the younger generation the more real looking it gets.

I am 100% for laws that Norway has were it must be labeled that a photo has been edit. AI-art should need to be labeled to help prevent body dis-morphia. Body dis-morphia leads to eating disorders, depression and suicidal thoughts and actions.

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

#464

Post by nobodyandproud »

acuozzo wrote: post #384
Aurornis wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> because computers and the internet became available Because of Bell Labs (inventors of the transistor & Unix & UUCP & so much more) which was so well-funded by the post-WW2 US economic situation. The Internet? DARPA! DARPA? Post-WW2 US M.I.C.-driven economy. The list goes on and on and on. F/OSS owes so much to The Marshall Plan. Is this a sweeping, reductionist PeterZeihan-esque argument? Sure, but I think it's va…

43k karma for 3 year old user account and not a single submission.

Make of it what you will.

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

#466

Post by skeledrew »

Isognoviastoma wrote: post #141
skeledrew wrote: post #101

I said it just recently[0] and I'll say it again: those who're big on open source (or at least copyleft) should be jumping hard on the AI opportunity. The core purpose of copyleft is to ensure the freedom of users to do whatever they want with the covered works, chained ad infinitum. Letting AI at said works (and more) now means even more freedom, as now users can trivially (compared to previously) update that code t…

Copyleft is copyright held in smart way. Nobody can take code under GPL and make its _copy_ proprietary because it would be violation of copyright. In the other thread you argued that AI output is not copyrighted. Do you think I can take proprietary code and lauder through AI to get a non-copyrighted copy of it, then modify to my needs? How can I obtain the proprietary code legally in the first place?

> you argued that AI output is not copyrighted

I didn't argue it. The US courts made - and implicitly upheld - the ruling.

https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/03/us-supreme-court-de...

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

#467

Post by skeledrew »

wat10000 wrote: post #306
skeledrew wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to attach strings which involve restricting access, open source is not the way to go.

By far the most popular strings involve restricting restricting access. That is, viral licenses which require derived works to also be open source.

> restricting restricting access

And that's exactly the point. The rule of copyright is explicitly used against itself, which makes it a legitimizing string.

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

#468

Post by bushbaba »

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 not free. You’re selling your data, location history, and advertising real estate in exchange for maps.

There’s a cost, it’s just not in dollars.

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

#469

Post by amarant »

lelanthran wrote: post #409
amarant wrote: post #256

Earlier 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.

So the pixel editor I made using AI that was trained on, among other things, the Linux kernel, is to be considered derivative of the Linux kernel?

And that's not an interpretation?

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

#470

Post by abenga »

bushbaba wrote: post #468
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. You’re selling your data, location history, and advertising real estate in exchange for maps. There’s a cost, it’s just not in dollars.

Maybe that cost is meaningless for GP (right or not).
Post reply on HN