Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by csdvrx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

csdvrx

> Anonymous common property, sold by the LLM companies. No credit to the author.

Yes, and?

> Why anyone opens any software anymore is a mystery to me.

Before LLM: to share nice things with other people who may like them

After LLM: to share nice things with other people who may like them

> We are witnessing the greatest theft of intellectual property in the history of Man.

Yes, and?

Before LLM, anyone could already take free software and copy-paste the code while stripping away the author's name or the license.

There are more motivations than getting credit, or money.

If what I create can ultimately have a positive impact, it does not matter whether the credit goes to the LLM, to me or anyone else.

I would suggest you question and analyze your motivations.

View on HN

> I would suggest you question and analyze your motivations.

Full disclosure up front: I'm not anti-AI and think there are a lot of potential positive applications. I currently work on improving some aspects of AI.

That said, it really isn't that hard to see why many people (including me to some extent) are nervous about AI getting better, and upset that the people who made the content that facilitated this are not benefiting from it.

If you're a SWE and not already extremely stable financially, AI replacing software engineering (and if that happens, ~all white-collar labor) means that you'll likely be unable to achieve anything close to the economic status expected and planned on.

> Before LLM, anyone could already take free software and copy-paste the code while stripping away the author's name or the license.

Before LLM, people doing this posed ~0 existential threat to the livelihood of the author. AI doing it at a massive scale arguably does (remains to be seen, but at least plausible).

I think most people want their work to have a positive impact, and aren't that concerned about credit. But they aren't confident that helping LLMs will lead to long-term positive impacts, and in any case are less worried about that than not being able to own a house or maybe even buy necessities because of the possible economic impacts of AI.

Is this more of an indictment of our current social/economic system than of AI itself? Probably yes, but I'm not sure it matters.

> you'll likely be unable to achieve anything close to the economic status expected and planned on

It may be a problem of expectations + loss aversion, as high income from software jobs is a historically "recent" phenomenon

> AI doing it at a massive scale arguably does (remains to be seen, but at least plausible).

I agree that scale can change many things, but the core argument is still someone fearing for their job

> Is this more of an indictment of our current social/economic system than of AI itself? Probably yes, but I'm not sure it matters.

I just want to better understand why so many people here have such a negative take on a technology that is new, exciting, and could bring so much to so many people!

Thanks for your detailed reply: like you I believe it's just self-interest, and "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it"

> high income from software jobs

I don't think it is a worry about just software jobs though. Would people be nearly as concerned if some "Technology X" would delete all software jobs but leave all other white-collar jobs intact? Probably not nearly as much, just retrain and go do some other job. I think the concern is that once an AI can replace SWE, it is likely already at the level where in short order there will be no value to intellectual labor, no "thinking jobs" that can sustain a good life.

So basically I don't think it is just self-interest. I think a lot of people see a plausible outcome being the destruction of the value of (at least intellectual) labor. If labor loses all value and society isn't prepared to entirely upend our economic system, most people could suffer greatly, to the extent where the positive and exciting benefits of AI don't really mean much. If someone believes that not making their software open-source can delay that, it isn't necessarily a selfish decision. If that is what you believe, you're delaying a negative outcome for a lot of people.

Do most individuals who oppose AI doing so out of "just" self interest? Maybe. Not wanting to starve is inherently self interest but it's fundamental to not just human nature but every living thing to avoid starvation.

AI also has the potential to cause unimaginable harm to the entire globe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com