Hacker News Reader

Comment by malwrar | Hacker News Reader

Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. I spend most of my time now building my own little software ark, and I aspire to no longer think of programming in the next few years. I feel like the creative economy in general will be unrecognizable in the near future, maybe nonexistent. I wonder what modes of collaboration on ideas might form in the next few years.

View on HN

Here is what the purveyors of AI don't seem to realise. You can bend copyright law all you want in order to train your models on whatever you can grab, but in the absence of genuine protection of their creative work authors are simply not going to be publishing at all.

Great. More work for AI then.

People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. And fighting to be noticed in an unending torrent of slop.

Without any material or immaterial benefits? And with one's work being ground up and turned into weights for the next version of the machine that's threatening one's employment?

I personally am sharing stuff because I want people to read my comics, and maybe join my crowdfunding campaigns.

If I could put everyone pushing all this AI crap into a meat grinder, I would.

> People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing.

Those people who do that are too few and far between to make a difference. The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license. That license is how they specify what they want in return.

> The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license.

100% of open source devs aren’t giving away the source without a license, since a licence—the grant of permissions for what is otherwise exclusive to author under the law—is what makes something open source.

> That license is how they specify what they want in return.

No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator.

> No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator.

Wrong. What they want in return is either credit or derivatives of the software. It's disingenuous to suggest that all these authors specifying, in a legal document, the exact mechanism by which to pay them back don't know what they are asking.

If you're not happy with that trade, then don't make it.

I think they see it all too well. They still think they can make bank today while it lasts, whatever comes after is some other shareholder's problem. And if we're talking about open source, killing it might be a positive side effect, they'll be ready to sell you a closed source alternative when you no longer have options.

Furthermore, if people not only stop publishing, but also take down already published works, it will create a moat around already existing Language Models

And the more they DDOS small websites — instead of respectfully scraping once — the more realistic my conspiracy theory looks.

I don't think we're going back to closed source. I think we're going back to guilds. Aka. closed knowledge.

The sad thing is I feel trapped on all sides of the debate, I wrote a book about LLMs and human creativity (spoiler Humans win for a long time) but I was going to do it as a blog series, instead I published https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXCSY4W8 because I felt at least I might get a bit back for literally 100’s of hours of my life I poured into the book and my editor and friends who read and provided reviews.

And I push a lot of open source code including a ton for the SWGEmu project, but now I’m of mixed mind to stop pushing anything public. I can’t decide, am I talking out of both sides of my mouth, it’s a confusing time to navigate for sure.

Indeed sad, congrats on publishing your book though. I’ve certainly felt a bit of that same angst myself.

I think SWGEmu (cool project, just learned of it from you!) do represent some optimism though. Maybe these sorts of passion projects will take over the space?

> Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason.

Me too; not that I've published a lot, but definitely more than most. That won't be happening anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com