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

81–90 of 515 posts

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

#81

Post by Aurornis »

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…

> He doesn't acknowledge that Anthropic, OpenAI, etc, are profiting while the original authors are not.

How is this different than any company that uses the open source software?

I find this argument hard to swallow. If open source contributors want to profit from their code being used and prevent big companies from using it or learning from it, open sourcing it would be an irrational choice.

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

#82

Post by imiric »

Thinking of open source as a gift is such a strange take. It implies that the relationship is merely a transaction where the giftee is the beneficiary and the gifter is a philanthropist. It has subtle financial undertones, and a sense that gifters are somehow morally superior.

It is far healthier to see it as a collaboration. The author publishes the software with freedoms that allow anyone to not only use the software, but crucially to modify it and, hopefully, to publish their changes as well so that the entire community can benefit, not just the original author or those who modify it. It encourages people to not keep software to themselves, which is in great part the problem with proprietary software. Additionally, copyleft licenses ensure that those freedoms are propagated, so that malicious people don't abuse the system, i.e. avoiding the paradox of tolerance.

Far be it from me to question the wisdom of someone like Carmack, but he's not exactly an authority on open source. While id has released many of their games over the years, this is often a few years after the games are commercially relevant. I guess it makes sense that someone sees open source as a "gift" they give to the world after they've extracted the value they needed from it. I have little interest in what he has to say about "AI", as well.

Hey John, where can I find the open source projects released by your "AI" company?

Ah, there's physical_atari[1]. Somehow I doubt this is the next industry breakthrough, but I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.

[1]: https://github.com/Keen-Technologies/physical_atari

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

#83

Post by Aurornis »

john_strinlai wrote: post #33
gruez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. What makes this more objectionable than profiting off open source projects by using it directly? eg. tech giants using linux as a server OS, rather than having to pay microsoft thousands per server for a windows server license? With the original GPL, they don't even have…

> What makes this more objectionable than profiting off open source projects by using it directly? i can brag if netflix is using my X or facebook runs all their stuff with my Y. that can help me land consulting gigs, solicit donations, etc.

This is an edge case in OSS. Even among software packages used by Netflix and Amazon, few of them were attributable to a single maintainer or small group of individuals. They've long since become community developed projects.

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

#84

Post by john_strinlai »

Aurornis wrote: post #81
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…

> He doesn't acknowledge that Anthropic, OpenAI, etc, are profiting while the original authors are not. How is this different than any company that uses the open source software? I find this argument hard to swallow. If open source contributors want to profit from their code being used and prevent big companies from using it or learning from it, open sourcing it would be an irrational choice.

>How is this different than any company that uses the open source software?

recognition for the authors, which can lead to all sorts of opportunities. "netflix uses my X for their Y, worldwide" opens doors.

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

#85

Post by throwaway2027 »

Isognoviastoma wrote: post #77

Most of FOSS is not a free gift, but asks for some form of repay. MIT asks for credit. GPL asks or credit and GPL'ing of things built atop. Unlicense is a free gift, but it is a minority. AI reproduces code while removing credit and copyleft from it and this is the problem.

Exactly like someone else here said, in retrospect he probably just wishes he had chosen a more permissive license now that he has forever received the credit and wants to have his cake and eat it too.

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

#86

Post by pseudalopex »

3rodents wrote: post #18
emiliobumachar wrote: post #5

As I understand it, the anti-AI stance of open source software people in particular has nothing to do with AI learning from code bases, and everything to do with AI slop clogging all unrestricted community feedback channels.

Yeah — isn’t he confusing the arguments against AI art? I’m against AI art because it is built on stealing the work of artists who did not consent to their work being trained on. I couldn’t care less about models trained on the open source software I released, because I released it to be used. edit: I’m assuming licenses were respected

> edit: I’m assuming licenses were respected

Licenses were not respected. Most open source licenses require credit at least.

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

#87

Post by Aurornis »

tuna74 wrote: post #31
amarant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the case, and even the point, of all open source, even before AI? What's the point of a gift if the receiver isn't allowed to benefit/profit from it? For instance, do you think Linus is upset that ~90% of all internet servers are running his os, for profit, without paying him? Of course he isn't, that was the point of the whole thing! Are you upset Netflix, Google, and heck, even Microsoft are raking in mi…

Linus T explicitly licensed Linux under a license that allows anyone to run it but requires people who modify modifications to share those modifications.

> but requires people who modify modifications to share those modifications.

Not exactly. You can modify Linux and run it yourself all you want without obligation to share your changes. The sharing requirements are more limited and involve distribution.

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

#88

Post by Aurornis »

john_strinlai wrote: post #84
Aurornis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He doesn't acknowledge that Anthropic, OpenAI, etc, are profiting while the original authors are not. How is this different than any company that uses the open source software? I find this argument hard to swallow. If open source contributors want to profit from their code being used and prevent big companies from using it or learning from it, open sourcing it would be an irrational choice.

> How is this different than any company that uses the open source software? recognition for the authors, which can lead to all sorts of opportunities. "netflix uses my X for their Y, worldwide" opens doors.

Can you cite an actual example of a FAANG company using X for Y that is also primarily attributable to a single developer? That is, someone who can say "uses my X"?

Not a community-developed project with a lot of contributors, but a software that would realistically qualify as being mostly attributable to one person?

Redis is an easy example, but the author of that doesn't need to say "Netflix uses my X" because the software is popular by itself. AI being trained on Redis code hasn't done anything to diminish that, as far as I can tell.

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

#89

Post by tw04 »

j-bos wrote: post #61
bombcar wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that the "natural reaction" to releasing an open source project, have it be successful, and have some Amazon "steal" it (leave the argument aside, that's how people will feel, big company makes money using the gift) is somehow worse than if you work for Big Company, they pay you, and then later use your code to make billions.

Yeah, it's rhymes with people getting mad about pharmacos charging outrageous prices for life saving drugs they developed in order to charge outrageous prices. In both cases (drugs and OSS) it's an ugly process that produces great and greatly uneven value to humanity, but the alternatives are less value overall, even to those on the losing side of the uneven value.

>it's an ugly process that produces great and greatly uneven value to humanity

That'd be far more believable if it weren't for the fact a vast majority of the research is publicly funded for those drug companies. They have no issues selling their drugs for less money in other markets while still turning a profit. And there's absolutely no indication they'd cease to exist with just outrageous profits, not "crippling entire economies" level profits.

Post reply on HN