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

481–490 of 515 posts

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

#481

Post by tonyedgecombe »

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.

Back when I started my career (in the eighties) I would have given my right arm for Google Maps or an equivalent.

I was on the road most of the time and navigating to customers was a complete pain in the arse.

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

#482

Post by oxag3n »

Open sourcing old games is OSS corner case.

Being on the top of the Maslow's Pyramid and knowing there's a very little chance you'll slide down is another reason that change people's attitude to things. The side effect is becoming numb to the majority who isn't filthy rich but contribute way more to OSS.

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

#483

Post by dundarious »

agentultra wrote: post #176

All due respect to Carmack but I think his take is probably influenced by his investment in his own AI company. There doesn’t seem to be many on this space who have any ethical or moral problems with profiting from the work of others and not contributing anything back to the commons. If we all intended our work in OSS the way he did maybe we’d all see it his way too. Copy left licenses are generally intended, afaict,…

I don't think his AI company is the issue, it's that he desired the effect of a public domain/unlicense, a completely unfettered gift, while he was constrained by the business people to use a copyleft license. However, most people using a copyleft license are using it with (some) intent, and choosing it with (some) explicit preference over public domain/unlicenses, i.e., they are not intending it to be an unconstrained gift, they want a social dynamic of code recycling only in the open and with attribution (each optional and with variations depending on the license, but those are commonly desired constraints).

It is of course fine to have his opinion, but if he thinks most people are in fact like him when they chose a copyleft license, then I think he's projecting rather than observing.

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

#484

Post by RunSet »

8cvor6j844qw_d6 wrote: post #342
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…

> This is because Carmack doesn't really do OSS It's a little disheartening that someone can release their code and still be told they "don't really do OSS".

He *did* really do OSS. But he don't really do OSS.

> id Tech 4 is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v3.0 or later, and is to date the last id Tech engine to be open-sourced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_4

> At QuakeCon 2007, Carmack told LinuxGames that he would integrate as little proprietary software as possible into id Tech 5, as "eventually id Tech 5 is going to be open source also. This is still the law of the land at id, that the policy is that we’re not going to integrate stuff that’s going to make it impossible for us to do an eventual open source release." Carmack resigned from id in 2013, and no source code release followed the launch of id Tech 6 in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_5#Marketing_and_licens...

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

#485

Post by jasomill »

Lerc wrote: post #429
lelanthran wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mome…

Facts aren't subject to copyright.

As for what constitutes a derivative work, this is a matter of law. In the US,

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

(17 U.S.C. § 101)

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

#486

Post by jasomill »

esperent wrote: post #430
sph wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find the idea of a thinking screwdriver annoying. Thinking things are difficult to reason about, and tools that are difficult to reason about are frustrating to use.

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

#487

Post by Lerc »

jasomill wrote: post #485
Lerc wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mome…

Facts aren't subject to copyright. As for what constitutes a derivative work, this is a matter of law. In the US, A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted…

Good point about facts. It applies similarly to properties that provide functionality. One tends to lose track of the fact that much of software shouldn't be copyrightable in the first place, it's just a pretence that has evolved due to how much people like money.

It's a stretch to say that training a model falls under that definition of derivative work. It's be like saying that building a house after reading a book on how to build a house makes the house a derivative work. I can just imagine cookbooks introducing limited licences on who you can feed with their recipes.

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

#488

Post by vovavili »

raincole wrote: post #275
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…

> 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 This tells you about Reddit's demographic and nothing else. Remember Reddit has a dedicated sub for antiwork. It used to have a sub for shoplifting (I'm not kidding.)

I definitively noticed a major uptick in both my well-being and an ability to hold a nuanced opinion on the world when I have stopped using reddit. The medium is the message.

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

#489

Post by ryandrake »

sph wrote: post #405
skybrian wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think a lot of engineers ignore the ends because they enjoy the means. The ethical impact of their work doesn't matter because they get to work on cool technology.

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

#490

Post by wiseowise »

shdh wrote: post #474
wiseowise wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point though? That just because he's extremely smart, got lucky and got rich in the process he's somehow immune to critique? No one can argue that John is an exceptional programmer and human being, but millions of developers aren't Carmacks – they're shmucks trying to survive under increasing pressure of corporate boot squeezing ever more. They're the ones being threatened by AI, not wealthy John for whom…

Being displaced due to improved technology isn't anything new. Wagons pulled by horses used to be driven by people as well.

> Being displaced due to improved technology isn't anything new. Wagons pulled by horses used to be driven by people as well.

And in this situation Carmack is essentially a wealthy, rich ranch owner who says to peasant that it's not a big deal at all. Again: what's your point?

Post reply on HN