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! But it's not what most people who are deep into open source mean by the term.
John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
91–100 of 515 posts
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>Can you cite an actual example of a FAANG company using [...]
FAANG specifically? no, i am not familiar with their entire tech stacks.
but i have leaned on my single-developer projects (being used in other, not owned by me, software) to help land consulting gigs.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#93everyone with a paid house and a fat 401K is pretty chill with AI, and giving gifts and being all so generous
meanwhile, in the trenches, rent and bills are approaching 2/3 of paycheck and food the other 2/3, while at the same time the value of our knowledge and experience are going down to zero (in the eyes of the managerial class)
'ai training magnifies the gift' ... sure thing ai training magnifies a lot of things
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Presumably you are licensing your code as MIT or a similar license. Not all code is licensed that way. Some open-source code had strings attached , but AI launders the code and makes them moot.
No one cares. Copyright in general is done, and we are all stronger now. Don't fight AI, fight for open models.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#95[flagged]
Attack the argument not the man. Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_, since, presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit.
Says who?
GPL is transactional. The author's profit is in the up streaming of enhancements.
Those who release under GPL absolutely do care about profit, it's just that the profit is measured in contributions.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably you are licensing your code as MIT or a similar license. Not all code is licensed that way. Some open-source code had strings attached , but AI launders the code and makes them moot.
No one cares. Copyright in general is done, and we are all stronger now. Don't fight AI, fight for open models.
there are no open models. none. zero.
there are binary files that some companies are allowing you to download, for now. it was called shareware in the old days.
one day the tap will close and we'll see then what open models really means
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#97In my mind, AI is making a lot of engineers, including Carmack, seem fairly thoughtless. At the other moments in recent history where technology has displaced workers, labor has either had to fight some very bloody battles or had stronger labor organization. Tech workers are highly atomized now, and if you have to work to live, you're negotiating on your own. It seems like Carmack, like a lot of tech people, have for…
> Even a small % of layoffs of the US white collar work force will crash the economy, as our economy is extremely levered.
A major economic crash as the only consequence would be the good ending.
The real societal risk here is that software development is not just a field of primarily white men, it was one of the last few jobs that could reliably get one homeownership & an (upper) middle class life.
And the current US government is not, shall we say, the most liberal. There is a substantial risk that when forced with the financial destitution of being unemployed while your field is dying, people will radicalize.
It takes a good amount of moral integrity to be homeless under a bridge and still oppose the gestapo deporting the foreigners who have jobs you'd be qualified for. And once the deportations begin, I doubt they'll stop with only the H1Bs. The Trump admin's not exactly been subtle about their desire to undo naturalizations and even birthright citizenship.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#98[flagged]
Attack the argument not the man. Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_, since, presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit.
No please, for the love of god, he's been an asshole for decades. He has set back gaming everywhere he's been in charge. The guy makes 1 kind of experience. He's the opposite of a good leader.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#99I 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 weights models training on OSS as well, because they simply don't want LLMs to exist as a going concern. It seems like the profit "reason" is just a convenient bullet point that resonates with people that dislike corporations or the current capitalist structure.
Similarly, plenty of folks driving big gas guzzling vehicles and generally not terribly climate-focused will spread misinformation about AI water usage. It's frankly kind of maddening. I wish people would just give their actual reasons, which are largely (actually) motivated by perceived economic vulnerability.
Re: John Carmack about open source and anti-AI activists
#100[flagged]
Attack the argument not the man. Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_, since, presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit.
Pointing out that a man who has achieved financial freedom decades ago may have different priorities than present and future wage slaves isn't attacking the man.