This will kill open source. Anything of value will be derived and re-derived and re-re-derived by bad players until no-one knows which package or library to trust.
The fatal flaw of the open internet is that bad players can exploit with impunity. It happened with email, it happened with websites, it happened with search, and now it's happening with code. Greedy people spoil good things.
billy99k 125 days ago [-]
This was always the case with open source. It's not that hard to obfuscate code in compiled binaries.
squigz 124 days ago [-]
Yup, a fundamental side effect of freedom is that some people are assholes and will abuse it.
No, it won't kill open source, just as it hasn't killed the Internet.
awesome_dude 125 days ago [-]
If this was true, why hasn't it happened for the last... 30 or 40 years that FOSS code has been published on the internet
makeitdouble 125 days ago [-]
Copyright was the base protection layer. Not in the "I own it" sense, but in the "you can't take it and run with it" sense.
With the current weakening of it, it opens the door to abuses that we don't have the proper tools to deal with now. Perhaps new ones will emerge, but we'll have to see.
croes 125 days ago [-]
Same reason why fake images and videos are now more. Photoshop existed 30 years ago.
Before LLM you needed time and abilities to do it, with AI you need less of both.
ares623 125 days ago [-]
Last i checked LLMs didn’t exist until only a few years ago
trod1234 125 days ago [-]
Until now, people have had the leverage/cost asymmetry in their favor where they could easily differentiate and make rational choices.
AI has tipped that nuanced balance in a way that is both destructive, and unsustainable. Just like any other fraud or ponzi.
Cost/loss constraint function now favors the unskilled, blind, destructive individual running an LLM who spits on all those that act with good faith. Quite twisted.
userbinator 125 days ago [-]
Hopefully the spread of AI will make more people realise that everything is a derivative work. If it wasn't an AI, it was a human standing on the shoulders of giants.
as1mov 125 days ago [-]
The offending repository is copying files verbatim while removing off the license header from the said files. It's not "standing on the shoulder of giants".
typpilol 125 days ago [-]
That doesn't even seem like ai but just direct copy pasting lol
em-bee 125 days ago [-]
looks to me like they are using AI to refactor the code, not to generate it. even if we allow code to be used to train AI to generate new code, copying code and refactoring it is something entirely different.
dvfjsdhgfv 125 days ago [-]
This is a very intriguing statement because it looks like it contains a truism but something is off. Yes, everything is a derivative work of some kind, what matters is the amount of added value - if it gets close to 0 as in this case, we've got bare plagiarism.
[As a side note, the problem with LLMs (sorry, the term "AI" became so muddy I prefer not to use it) is that they tend to be extremely uncreative and just average to mean. So I wouldn't expect added value in creativity itself, just helping humans with more menial tasks just like antirez is doing.]
croes 125 days ago [-]
AI makes it easy for others to claim they did the work so others are less likely to do the real work. Means the giants won’t grow.
add-sub-mul-div 125 days ago [-]
Nothing subverts my defense of human creativity more than the cliched human defenses of AI.
monero-xmr 125 days ago [-]
For those of us who exceed the AI, it raises our value enormously. You see it in the pay of the AI engineers. But in the high interest rate world, those of us who continue to be employed, are commanding higher wages, as far as I can tell. It is a culling of the lesser-than.
One unfortunate side-effect is the junior engineers who cannot immediately exceed the AI are not being hired as often. But this era echos the dotcom boom, where very low-skilled people commanded very-high wages. Universities, which have always been white collar job training but pretended they weren't, are being impacted greatly.
24% of undergraduate MIT students this year have Computer Science in the title (I asked chatgpt to calculate this from the difficult-to-parse website). 1/4 of all MIT undergraduates are not being trained to be future PhD researchers - they, like all other schools, are training the vast majority of their students for private sector workforce jobs.
The culling is happening all over. We will likely go down to < 1000 colleges in America from 4000 now over the next 15 years.
This is a good thing. The cost of university degrees is far too high. We are in the midst of a vast transition. College should return to being the purview of the truly intelligent and the children of the rich, as it was for all time before WW2. This very weird experiment in human history is ending, and it cannot happen soon enough
sciencejerk 125 days ago [-]
> College should return to being the purview of the truly intelligent and the children of the rich, as it was for all time before WW2.
You're likely correct that we're witnessing a reconsolidation of wealth and the extinction of the middle class in society, but you seem happy about this? Be careful what you wish for...
ares623 125 days ago [-]
They probably think they’re one of the “truly intelligent and children/parent of the rich” lol
monero-xmr 125 days ago [-]
I would not want the unintelligent and non-rich to go into debt to spend 4 years at a university, getting a degree in a subject which is absurd
Please, tell me how going $300k in debt for an undergraduate degree in Tourism Studies benefits society, or the student
ares623 125 days ago [-]
Sounds like a US problem tbh
monero-xmr 125 days ago [-]
Nearly every European university offers a degree in Tourism. The difference is regarding debt. But socializing the cost of a degree in tourism does not mean the cost isn’t born by society. I believe deep in my bones that one can learn the ropes of managing a hotel outside the illustrious grounds of a university
ares623 125 days ago [-]
Tbh it just sounds like you don’t value others and others’ work that isn’t a “hard” field.
Sure people can learn hotel management outside of university. But outside of nepotism who will trust random strangers with no qualifications to get their foot in the door?
And you make it sound like socializing the cost of improving outcomes for the next generations as a negative. What is the point if society if not that? Even from a purely selfish perspective, The next generation will take care of me when I am too old to do it myself. I’d want them to be in a good state by then
Do you think you got to wherever you are now without some part of socialized cost of society getting you there?
monero-xmr 125 days ago [-]
“Tourism studies” isn’t a field. It’s not an academic discipline. Requiring someone to spend years “studying” this is completely absurd. The reality is university is finishing school, and young adults desire 4 years of screwing around while officially getting a degree, and society subsidies it.
You have missed my point entirely. These degrees have no value. I would argue they have negative value when factoring in their cost in resources and wasted time
monero-xmr 125 days ago [-]
Alternatively, all middle class jobs do not require a college degree. Perhaps a college degree is primarily a signalling mechanism for adherence to a bygone era of societal norms. But the price is far too high to justify it, and the market will create alternative proof of societal norms, at a far cheaper price. Which is happening as we debate.
My concern now is a large number of under-employed college graduates who are indebted to worthless degrees, feeling pinched because the debt far surpasses their market value. This has been the case for a long time, but has now reached the upper-echelons of academia where even Ivy league grads cannot get employment. You need to re-calibrate your ire to the correct target
sciencejerk 125 days ago [-]
If AI and other societal shifts eliminate many white-collar jobs in developed countries, degree-seekers will eventually notice and the demand and perceived value of a college education may greatly diminish.
I got my degree at a time when it was actually useful as a signalling mechanism. Now students might not benefit much from a college degree and internships might be hard to find. This is too bad and grossly unfair.
I hope that new societal avenues are created to help young people start their careers, even if those careers are in fields like plumbing, nursing and hospitality. I also hope efforts are made to help white collar workers transition into other (lesser-paying) careers when AI really starts to permanently reduce the size of the white-collar workforce.
sciencejerk 125 days ago [-]
> You need to re-calibrate your ire to the correct target
Who do you think is the correct target? Big institutions? The college system?
monero-xmr 125 days ago [-]
Definitely the colleges, which charge more year after year, burdening the young with debt for worthless pieces of paper.
novemp 125 days ago [-]
Yeah, sure, not every job should require a degree, but that doesn't justify keeping The Poors from pursuing education.
Some of us value education for its own sake, not as a prerequisite for employment.
monero-xmr 125 days ago [-]
You are assuming the only avenue to "education" is through the university experience
novemp 125 days ago [-]
Some people learn best in structured class settings.
card_zero 125 days ago [-]
35%, ignoring "secondary majors" which may or may not coincide with primary majors that also have CS in the title.
(Also ignoring the thousand first years at the end of the list.)
The various 0.5 half-student quantities throw some doubt on the measurement too.
teiferer 125 days ago [-]
> College should return to being the purview of the truly intelligent and the children of the rich, as it was for all time before WW2.
Yeah, the world was a better place when it was mostly white males having that chance.
/s
nhinck3 125 days ago [-]
[flagged]
smj-edison 125 days ago [-]
Yeah, this is where I find the copyright argument a little weak. Because how do artisans learn their craft? By observing others' work.
Instead, I feel like the objections are (rightly) these two issues:
1. GenAI operates at a much larger scale than an individual artist. I don't think artists would have an issue with someone commissioning a portrait say in the style Van Gogh (copyright argument). They would have an issue if that artist painted 100,000 pictures a day in the style of Van Gogh.
2. Lack of giving back: some of the greatest artists have internalized great art from previous generations, and then something miraculous happens. An entirely new style emerges. They have now given back to the community that incubated them. I don't really see this same giving back with GenAI.
Edit: one other thought. Adobe used their own legally created art to train their model, and people still complain about it, so I don't buy the copyright argument if they're upset about Adobe's GenAI.
Edit 2: I'm not condoning blatant copyright infringement like is detailed in this post.
visarga 125 days ago [-]
1. If I wanted the "style of Van Gogh" I would simply download Van Gogh, why waste time and money on approximative AI. But if I want something Else, then I can use AI. But Gen AI is really the worst infringement tool, for example would anyone try to read bootleg Harry Potter from a LLM to avoid payment? Don't think so.
2. LLMs will give back what you put in + what they learned, it's your job to put in the original parts. But every so often this interaction will spark some new ideas. The LLM+human team can get where neither of them would get alone, building on each other's ideas.
bluefirebrand 125 days ago [-]
> Because how do artisans learn their craft? By observing others' work
I don't think that computer systems of any kind should have the same right to fair use that humans have
I think humans should get fair use carve outs for fanart and derivative work, but AI should not
charcircuit 125 days ago [-]
>Lack of giving back
I disagree. There is a ton of free AI generated text, code, images, and video available for completely free for people to learn from.
chrisldgk 125 days ago [-]
Which is just laundered from real material that real humans put work in to create, only to be regurgitated by a krass homonculous of 1s and 0s for free without any mention of the real work that has been put into creating that information.
I’m not a big fan of the copyright system we have myself, but there’s a reason it exists. AI companies illegally training their AI on copyrighted content to reap the spoils of the hard work of other people that never get recognition for their work is the opposite of „giving back“.
Amekedl 124 days ago [-]
No, this "observing" argument has already been beaten to death by a multitude of creatives explaining way better than I could how they learn and operate.
If you really think all they do is observe, form a gradient from millions of samples and spit out some approximations, you are deeply mistaken.
You cannot equate human learning with how genai learns (and if it did, we'd have agi already imao)
alganet 125 days ago [-]
Copyright is a nightmare. It's just that it sounds like a gentler nightmare than hyperscaled algorithms controlled by a few.
hu3 125 days ago [-]
This. AI is a magnificent way to make the entire world's codebase available as a giant, cross-platform, standard library.
I welcome AI to copy my crap if that's going to help anyone in the future.
beeflet 125 days ago [-]
Except closed source software which it isn't trained on.
alganet 125 days ago [-]
You forgot to mention that if things continue as they are, a very small group of people will have complete control over this giant library.
hu3 125 days ago [-]
It's a concern. But there are open source models.
vineyardmike 125 days ago [-]
Open source model, created at great expense… by a still small cohort of people.
There are like a dozen organizations globally creating anything close to state of the art models. The fact that you can use some for free on your own hardware doesn’t change that those weights were trained by a small cohort of people, with training data selected by those people, and fine-tuning and “alignment” created by those people.
Sure you can fine-tune the smaller ones yourself, but that still leaves you at the will of original creator.
alganet 125 days ago [-]
No, there aren't.
There is open source training and inference software. And there are open weights.
Those things are not enough to reproduce the training.
Even if you had the hardware, you would not be able to recreate llama (for example) because you don't know what data went into the training.
That's a very weird library. You can get their summaries, but you don't have access to the original works used when creating it. Sounds terrible, open source or not.
zdwolfe 125 days ago [-]
I find it odd that any LLM could be considered open source. Sure the weights are available to download and use, but you can't reasonably reconstruct the output model as it's impractical for an individual to gather a useful dataset or spend $5,000,000+ of GPU time training.
_ea1k 125 days ago [-]
Distillation can extract the knowledge from an existing model into a newly trained one. That doesn't solve the cost problem, but costs are steadily coming down.
goku12 125 days ago [-]
That's still a crude repurposement of an inscrutable artifact. Open source requires you to share the source data from which that artifact (the model parameters) was created.
ares623 125 days ago [-]
Are you able to build these models from source?
CamperBob2 125 days ago [-]
I'll give you the only upvote you'll probably get for that sentiment around here. Enjoy your trip to -4 (Dead)!
cientifico 125 days ago [-]
The license was MIT until two months ago.
That gives anyone the right to get the source code of that commit and do whatever.
The article does not specified if the company is still using the code AFTER the license change.
The rest of the points are still valid.
Leynos 124 days ago [-]
MIT places the following condition on the licencee if they wish to re-distribute the code:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Which the other party was not doing.
nasusnavas 124 days ago [-]
I looked at their codebase and it seems the other party was doing. I'm seeing a pattern here where either this is not really a copyright problem but possibly a marketing stunt if its not, then it may well be an emotional spiral or lash-out for one person extending another's open source logic even with attribution clearly given. If so then this is not healthy for the open-source community.
Also is it legal to start with MIT and change to Apache midway? The laws around opensource licensing are so tricky and cutthroat at this point.
Also does anyone know what this Intentional License is from the other party, I have never seen it before. It seems that's what their main package is while the other packages are Apache. If its custom is it even legal to just create a new OSS License out of nothing?
There's too much gray area with OSS especially when it comes to legalities we almost need a standard.
ClassicOldSong 124 days ago [-]
I'm the victim and yes, this is not entirelly about AI. If you have read the hall of shame, you'll know that they tends to lie. If it was only someone tried to use my code as their basis and forgot to include the attribution, after my notice they added, it's totally not worth a "hall of shame", and I'm actually glad that someone finally appreciates my works and make them useful.
But the reality is, they lied to everyone and I'm a chained victim. I was introduced to him by NativeScript, and before that he didn't even know the existence of rEFui. Now rEFui has become the most important fundament of their entire project, clearly indicates that they want to get something for nothing from the very beginning.
Till now they still didn't answer me why they made the basic mistakes and how it was fixed.They avoid everything I ask about them unless I presure them very hard, they'll give a very vage respond that answers nothing.
> is it legal to start with MIT and change to Apache midway?
As the author of the project, I have every right to change the license to anything. But also, I didn't wash the history to hide that the project was MIT. Technically I can, but that actually violates MIT itself and I don't want to be someone that say one thing and do another.
> even with attribution clearly given
They won't until I presured them very hard. They also washed much more than my projects, but also without attribution until I notified those project's authors. Actually, till now the code are still not fully attributed, only few get a proper attribution. They have now extracted code blocks from my original project into many many small separated files (potentially trying to hide the origin even further), but the code logic are actually not changed at all. According to those license, each piece of code they extract should keep an attribution to my original project.
I have a backup of the deleted project that contains the entire commit history of how he laundered these projects, and I can provide the entire Discord message history if you need evidence of all my statements.
nasusnavas 123 days ago [-]
Based on what you just said, it's not a copyright issue since you admitted that they gave attribution of which we can all see in their licenses and in some file notices. And based on my analysis of their codebase and as someone who's been coding for 20 years and what you just admitted to its not an AI issue either. Anyone who knows how to code would be able to tell AI Slop from structured human code. However, you kept referencing two or more repositories so which one?
> They also washed much more than my projects,
There's a lot of projects that use others as the basis of theirs as long as they have given attribution and have created a different upstream. Also the projects seemed very different from each other. If the case is a washed up project then that actually means its a completely different project.
> till now the code are still not fully attributed
My advice will be to reach out to the authors and point exactly the files you think is missing attribution. Since they have already added attribution and licenses as I can see, then I'm sure a few missing notices wouldn't kill them. But that's something you'd need to work out with them.
> I have a backup of the deleted project that contains the entire commit history of how he laundered these projects,
This is not relevant if its a deleted repository. I would suggest you focus on the new project you think is still in violation instead of referring to a completely different project if you want to hold a good stance.
In my opinion there's really no value in code anymore, I think the value should be what problem you are solving in a unique way. There are already millions of open-source projects on the internet and any one of them could have the same logic not because someone copied the other but because they were probably trying to solve the same problem and hence came to the same conclusion.
> Till now they still didn't answer me why they made the basic mistakes and how it was fixed.They avoid everything I ask about them unless I presure them very hard, they'll give a very vage respond that answers nothing.
As someone who has been in the industry for a long time, this comes off as entitled and demanding which may put the other party off and force them not to collaborate with you, I have seen this happen many times when people reach out to others to use their work as the foundation for a new work there is usually a sense of collaboration involved especially in OSS. When one party becomes entitled this is what causes forks and upstreams.
If you ask me as someone who has been in the same position as you it really is an easy fix. Simply reach back out in private since you've already been introduced without any anger or grandiosity (I know the situation can cause one to feel emotional). Someone arguing in good faith is always better than someone venting or spiraling. This will also be a good look for you and your project otherwise everyone one on the internet will just keep telling you what you want to hear but not the reality of how the industry work or how to actually fix it.
> it's totally not worth a "hall of shame"
You are right here. Imagine if every project that upstreamed another MIT or Apache project added this to their repository. An example would be if Feather Icons added Lucide Icons to their hall of shame because Lucide Icons created a derivative but still totally different work from Feather Icons. Also, Imagine someone added your own project to their hall of shame, you would no longer want to work with them would you? OSS has always been about community and collaboration. This is not it.
But my opinion are just mine feel free to approach this anyway you like but nobody wants the creators of the projects they use to have a bad look.
> I'm actually glad that someone finally appreciates my works and make them useful
I think you already have leverage here since they are most likely to even go out of their way to keep you happy but you just have to approach it from a sensible way especially if they are people with more resources than you which it seems if they where introduced by NativeScript.
> clearly indicates that they want to get something for nothing from the very beginning
Since they where introduced to you by a trusted party then your assessment on them trying to get something for nothing may not be true. Because bad actors would usually not bother in the first place. So its most likely they don't actually have any bad intentions and where probably put off by something else. Also you mentioned they Sponsored you in the hall of shame this is not the behavior of people with bad intentions. I'm just saying there is a possibility that you are seeing or approaching this wrongly.
ClassicOldSong 122 days ago [-]
Maybe the world around you is just too kind to you.
> which we can all see in their licenses and in some file notices.
Not enough. If not they have lied to me, I won't care about the file-level attribution at all.
> I think the value should be what problem you are solving in a unique way
Yes, the code contain my own construction of a signal system implementation and my own algorithms that AI's can't get them shuffled or rewritten.
> which may put the other party off and force them not to collaborate with you
I actually assisted them pretty well at the beginning, until I discovered that they're lying. They reached me through NativeScript(which is proved to be another vitim of them later), and promise me that they're making a huge ambitious project that even Google and Meta failed.But they're making really really basic mistakes that even a noob should know where the problem is, and they didn't even try to address the problem themselves - I pointed out the problem, and they just refuse to investigate and debug, refusing it really hard. It's them that first starting to not cooperate.
> Also, Imagine someone added your own project to their hall of shame, you would no longer want to work with them would you?
This happens *after* their non-cooperation.
> which it seems if they where introduced by NativeScript.
NativeScript is also been lied to. They tell me that they plan to acquire NativeScript but failed at giving evidences that they have the ability to do so. When I asked NativeScript side about the acquision, they're shocked to hear this, and denied the possibility of being acquired as it is now a OpenJS Foundation project.
> Since they where introduced to you by a trusted party
That's their trick. They claim they worked for Nvidia, it tricks NativeScript and then they can use NativeScript's introduction to trick me. It is almost impossible to verify that they really worked for NV but it tricks people into beliving they're capable of something big, but actually they can't even debug such a simple problem on their own.
> Also you mentioned they Sponsored you in the hall of shame this is not the behavior of people with bad intentions.
It's also their trick. They want to get much more from me beyond the project itself, totally ignoring that I have my own projects and plan. Also the price they claim to pay for what I'm going to do is really really low, considering how ambitious the project is and how incapable themselves are.
nasusnavas 122 days ago [-]
[dead]
arthurofbabylon 125 days ago [-]
If we step back and examine LLMs more broadly (beyond our personal use cases, beyond "economic impact", beyond the underlying computer science) what we are largely looking at is an emerging means of collaboration. I am not an expert computer scientist, and yet I can "collaborate" (I almost feel bad using this term) with expert computer scientists when my LLM helps me design my particular algorithm. I am not an expert on Indonesian surf breaks, yet I tap into an existing knowledge base when I query my LLM while planning the trip. I am very naive about a lot of things and thankfully there are numerous ways to integrate with experts and improve my capacity to engage in whatever I am naive about, LLMs offering the latest ground-breaking method.
This is the most appropriate lens through which to assess AI and its impact on open source, intellectual property, and other proprietary assets. Alongside this new form of collaboration comes a restructuring of power. It's not clear to me how our various societies will design this restructuring (so far we are collectively doing nearly nothing) but the restructuring of these power structures is not a technical process; it is cultural and political. Engineers will only offer so much help here.
For the most part, it is up to us to collectively orchestrate the new power structure, and I am still seeing very little literature on the topic. If anyone has a reading list, please share!
48terry 125 days ago [-]
Me copying and pasting your post verbatim to put on my blog under my name: "I greatly enjoyed collaborating with arthurofbabylon on this piece."
arthurofbabylon 124 days ago [-]
Forget about copying and pasting – the act of reading it is on the spectrum of collaboration. But thanks for the citation.
visarga 125 days ago [-]
> what we are largely looking at is an emerging means of collaboration.
They surpass open source, "out-open source-opensouce" by learning skills everywhere and opening them up for anyone who needs them later.
goku12 125 days ago [-]
It's owned by a few rich corporations and individuals. It isn't available to anyone - only to those they choose and are ready to pay them. And it isn't open source at all, because open source is not reuse without any obligations (even under permissive licenses). And let's not forget that they 'open' only FOSS works and individual works. They never expose proprietary IP belonging to rich corporations. It isn't an emerging method of collaboration - it's another method for wealth consolidation.
ugh123 125 days ago [-]
> Please DO NOT TURST ANY WORD THEY SAY. They're very good at lingual manipulation.
I don't know if this was intentional misspelling or not but it's damn funny
josfredo 125 days ago [-]
It is likely intentional as the author is battling AI with many means possible. However it leans towards funny and hopeless at the same time.
ebcode 125 days ago [-]
not hard to believe. I’ve been using claude code and am hesitant to publish publicly because I’m concerned about copyright violations. It would be nice if there were a registry (besides github) where I could compare “new” code against public repositories.
125 days ago [-]
adastra22 125 days ago [-]
Why? That’s not how copyright works.
laurex 125 days ago [-]
I’m interested in a new kind of license which I’m calling “relational source” - not about money or whether a product is commercial but instead if there’s an actual person who wants to use the code with some kind of AGPL-esque mechanism to ensure no mindless ingestion- perhaps this would never work but it’s also breaking the spirit of everything I love about OSS to have AI erasing the contributions of the people who put their time into doing the work.
selinkocalar 123 days ago [-]
We've seen cases where AI-generated code includes snippets that look suspiciously like they came from proprietary codebases. If an AI model was trained on copyrighted code and reproduces patterns from it, who's liable? The training process makes it really hard to trace back to original sources.
pjfin123 125 days ago [-]
Is the allegation here that a LLM generated code that was very similar to the author's copyright protected code or that they copied the code and then tried to use AI to hide that fact?
Leynos 124 days ago [-]
The allegation is that the party in question copied the author's code verbatim and stripped off the copyright / licence notices.
lschueller 122 days ago [-]
I'm afraid we will see much more of this in the near future. Good to see, when someone starts documenting such behavior
haebom 125 days ago [-]
Wouldn't “Pretending It's Mine” be a better name for the project?
CuriouslyC 125 days ago [-]
Sorry to say but this is going to be the new normal, and it's going to be quite difficult to stop. Your moat as a creator is your personal brand and the community you build around your tools.
o11c 125 days ago [-]
I just hope that means we're all allowed to feed leaked source code to our own AIs then. This is mandatory if we're to have any sort of coherent legal precedent.
ares623 125 days ago [-]
Game crackers can just claim they generated a completely different game using AI that just so happens to look very close to another game?
CuriouslyC 125 days ago [-]
They could copy the core game mechanics and have AI launder the source and generate new art assets. Proving infringement is going to be basically impossible for all but the most trivial of cases.
ares623 125 days ago [-]
The same could be done for movies too I guess. Probably easier.
One can setup a site to crowdsource laundering 8-10 second sections of an entire movie and then stitching it back.
throwaway290 125 days ago [-]
this is a blatant try to normalize. "Bad people do unethical things, I guess we'll have to live with it and shut up" is the vibe
the author is going good. it's not a new normal until everybody goes quiet
CuriouslyC 125 days ago [-]
This is a very bad faith comment from a throwaway account.
Recognition of realities is different from wishing for things to occur. If you think you can stop unethical people from AI washing your software, feel free to try, you will fail.
throwaway290 125 days ago [-]
Bad faith = trying to normalize bad faith behavior.
> If you think you can stop unethical people from AI washing your software, feel free to try, you will fail.
Posts like these = trying to stop unethical people from copyright (copyleft) washing. Telling people writing these posts that it's the new normal is basically saying they are doing pointless thing, while they are doing something very good
CuriouslyC 125 days ago [-]
Stop being a coward and have a discussion with me with your real identity.
You can whine about something till you're dead, but incentives drive actions, full stop. Instead of whining about normalization, lobby lawmakers to make actual change and build tools to help creators detect the issue.
throwaway290 124 days ago [-]
1 Stop telling me what to do
2 The incentives is to steal and rampage and rape. Some incentives deserve to die in fire, period. To change incentives we punish people or change people. Posts like these help
I think trying to shut up these efforts by saying this is "normal" is only done by people in that industry or invested in it who profit from this disaster
CuriouslyC 124 days ago [-]
How about this... If I was afraid to attach my public identity to my views on the internet, that would probably trigger some reflection in me as to the root cause of that emotion. I'm guessing shame, but people are complex so YMMV.
If the incentive was to steal and rampage and rape, people would be doing it more. The incentives are reversed though; 10 years in prison for rape, 6 years for stealing, and the odds are you will get caught eventually. If we removed law enforcement, there would be a lot more stealing and raping, though people would take justice in to their own hands as they did in cases of theft and rape in olden times.
Ultimately this is a dumb back and forth because we agree about the wrongness of the act, we just disagree about the best course of action and the ultimate value of certain approaches. You keep doing you, but if you really care about this I'd suggest you do something more productive than trying to high horse people on the internet about norms.
throwaway290 124 days ago [-]
You agree with me, incentives against rape and robbery because of laws and punishment. Sadly copyright laws are not made for LLMs yet. But we can still name and shame.
pessimizer 125 days ago [-]
> this is a blatant try to normalize.
This doesn't mean anything. You have no ability to "normalize" anything. It's not an action that somebody can take.
> it's not a new normal until everybody goes quiet
Real let me speak to your manager energy. Nobody is waiting for you to go quiet to get on with things.
throwaway290 125 days ago [-]
> You have no ability to "normalize" anything.
You can if you convince everyone to stop making a fuss because it's the new normal. The comment literally said "it's the new normal".
akoboldfrying 125 days ago [-]
> You have no ability to "normalize" anything.
Normalisation isn't something that one person by themselves can achieve. It only happens when public opinion is swayed. How is it swayed? By people deliberately trying to sway it, like GP here.
If you are instead arguing that normalisation is not really a thing at all: What do you call the change in attitudes to people who are left-handed, disabled, or homosexual?
nasusnavas 125 days ago [-]
[dead]
125 days ago [-]
dvrp 125 days ago [-]
This is the new reality. Information in the form of raw entropy encoded in weights—it doesn’t matter if it’s text, image, video, or 3D. Assets (or formerly known as assets) now belong to the big labs, if it’s on the internet.
Internet plus AI implies the tragedy of the commons manifested in the digital world.
Rendered at 14:30:25 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
The fatal flaw of the open internet is that bad players can exploit with impunity. It happened with email, it happened with websites, it happened with search, and now it's happening with code. Greedy people spoil good things.
No, it won't kill open source, just as it hasn't killed the Internet.
With the current weakening of it, it opens the door to abuses that we don't have the proper tools to deal with now. Perhaps new ones will emerge, but we'll have to see.
Before LLM you needed time and abilities to do it, with AI you need less of both.
AI has tipped that nuanced balance in a way that is both destructive, and unsustainable. Just like any other fraud or ponzi.
Cost/loss constraint function now favors the unskilled, blind, destructive individual running an LLM who spits on all those that act with good faith. Quite twisted.
[As a side note, the problem with LLMs (sorry, the term "AI" became so muddy I prefer not to use it) is that they tend to be extremely uncreative and just average to mean. So I wouldn't expect added value in creativity itself, just helping humans with more menial tasks just like antirez is doing.]
One unfortunate side-effect is the junior engineers who cannot immediately exceed the AI are not being hired as often. But this era echos the dotcom boom, where very low-skilled people commanded very-high wages. Universities, which have always been white collar job training but pretended they weren't, are being impacted greatly.
https://registrar.mit.edu/stats-reports/majors-count
24% of undergraduate MIT students this year have Computer Science in the title (I asked chatgpt to calculate this from the difficult-to-parse website). 1/4 of all MIT undergraduates are not being trained to be future PhD researchers - they, like all other schools, are training the vast majority of their students for private sector workforce jobs.
The culling is happening all over. We will likely go down to < 1000 colleges in America from 4000 now over the next 15 years.
This is a good thing. The cost of university degrees is far too high. We are in the midst of a vast transition. College should return to being the purview of the truly intelligent and the children of the rich, as it was for all time before WW2. This very weird experiment in human history is ending, and it cannot happen soon enough
You're likely correct that we're witnessing a reconsolidation of wealth and the extinction of the middle class in society, but you seem happy about this? Be careful what you wish for...
https://www.sps.nyu.edu/explore/degrees-and-programs/bs-in-h...
Please, tell me how going $300k in debt for an undergraduate degree in Tourism Studies benefits society, or the student
Sure people can learn hotel management outside of university. But outside of nepotism who will trust random strangers with no qualifications to get their foot in the door?
And you make it sound like socializing the cost of improving outcomes for the next generations as a negative. What is the point if society if not that? Even from a purely selfish perspective, The next generation will take care of me when I am too old to do it myself. I’d want them to be in a good state by then
Do you think you got to wherever you are now without some part of socialized cost of society getting you there?
You have missed my point entirely. These degrees have no value. I would argue they have negative value when factoring in their cost in resources and wasted time
My concern now is a large number of under-employed college graduates who are indebted to worthless degrees, feeling pinched because the debt far surpasses their market value. This has been the case for a long time, but has now reached the upper-echelons of academia where even Ivy league grads cannot get employment. You need to re-calibrate your ire to the correct target
I hope that new societal avenues are created to help young people start their careers, even if those careers are in fields like plumbing, nursing and hospitality. I also hope efforts are made to help white collar workers transition into other (lesser-paying) careers when AI really starts to permanently reduce the size of the white-collar workforce.
Who do you think is the correct target? Big institutions? The college system?
Some of us value education for its own sake, not as a prerequisite for employment.
(Also ignoring the thousand first years at the end of the list.)
The various 0.5 half-student quantities throw some doubt on the measurement too.
Yeah, the world was a better place when it was mostly white males having that chance.
/s
Instead, I feel like the objections are (rightly) these two issues:
1. GenAI operates at a much larger scale than an individual artist. I don't think artists would have an issue with someone commissioning a portrait say in the style Van Gogh (copyright argument). They would have an issue if that artist painted 100,000 pictures a day in the style of Van Gogh.
2. Lack of giving back: some of the greatest artists have internalized great art from previous generations, and then something miraculous happens. An entirely new style emerges. They have now given back to the community that incubated them. I don't really see this same giving back with GenAI.
Edit: one other thought. Adobe used their own legally created art to train their model, and people still complain about it, so I don't buy the copyright argument if they're upset about Adobe's GenAI.
Edit 2: I'm not condoning blatant copyright infringement like is detailed in this post.
2. LLMs will give back what you put in + what they learned, it's your job to put in the original parts. But every so often this interaction will spark some new ideas. The LLM+human team can get where neither of them would get alone, building on each other's ideas.
I don't think that computer systems of any kind should have the same right to fair use that humans have
I think humans should get fair use carve outs for fanart and derivative work, but AI should not
I disagree. There is a ton of free AI generated text, code, images, and video available for completely free for people to learn from.
I’m not a big fan of the copyright system we have myself, but there’s a reason it exists. AI companies illegally training their AI on copyrighted content to reap the spoils of the hard work of other people that never get recognition for their work is the opposite of „giving back“.
If you really think all they do is observe, form a gradient from millions of samples and spit out some approximations, you are deeply mistaken.
You cannot equate human learning with how genai learns (and if it did, we'd have agi already imao)
I welcome AI to copy my crap if that's going to help anyone in the future.
There are like a dozen organizations globally creating anything close to state of the art models. The fact that you can use some for free on your own hardware doesn’t change that those weights were trained by a small cohort of people, with training data selected by those people, and fine-tuning and “alignment” created by those people.
Sure you can fine-tune the smaller ones yourself, but that still leaves you at the will of original creator.
There is open source training and inference software. And there are open weights.
Those things are not enough to reproduce the training.
Even if you had the hardware, you would not be able to recreate llama (for example) because you don't know what data went into the training.
That's a very weird library. You can get their summaries, but you don't have access to the original works used when creating it. Sounds terrible, open source or not.
That gives anyone the right to get the source code of that commit and do whatever.
The article does not specified if the company is still using the code AFTER the license change.
The rest of the points are still valid.
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Which the other party was not doing.
Also is it legal to start with MIT and change to Apache midway? The laws around opensource licensing are so tricky and cutthroat at this point.
Also does anyone know what this Intentional License is from the other party, I have never seen it before. It seems that's what their main package is while the other packages are Apache. If its custom is it even legal to just create a new OSS License out of nothing?
There's too much gray area with OSS especially when it comes to legalities we almost need a standard.
But the reality is, they lied to everyone and I'm a chained victim. I was introduced to him by NativeScript, and before that he didn't even know the existence of rEFui. Now rEFui has become the most important fundament of their entire project, clearly indicates that they want to get something for nothing from the very beginning.
Till now they still didn't answer me why they made the basic mistakes and how it was fixed.They avoid everything I ask about them unless I presure them very hard, they'll give a very vage respond that answers nothing.
> is it legal to start with MIT and change to Apache midway?
As the author of the project, I have every right to change the license to anything. But also, I didn't wash the history to hide that the project was MIT. Technically I can, but that actually violates MIT itself and I don't want to be someone that say one thing and do another.
> even with attribution clearly given
They won't until I presured them very hard. They also washed much more than my projects, but also without attribution until I notified those project's authors. Actually, till now the code are still not fully attributed, only few get a proper attribution. They have now extracted code blocks from my original project into many many small separated files (potentially trying to hide the origin even further), but the code logic are actually not changed at all. According to those license, each piece of code they extract should keep an attribution to my original project.
I have a backup of the deleted project that contains the entire commit history of how he laundered these projects, and I can provide the entire Discord message history if you need evidence of all my statements.
> They also washed much more than my projects,
There's a lot of projects that use others as the basis of theirs as long as they have given attribution and have created a different upstream. Also the projects seemed very different from each other. If the case is a washed up project then that actually means its a completely different project.
> till now the code are still not fully attributed
My advice will be to reach out to the authors and point exactly the files you think is missing attribution. Since they have already added attribution and licenses as I can see, then I'm sure a few missing notices wouldn't kill them. But that's something you'd need to work out with them.
> I have a backup of the deleted project that contains the entire commit history of how he laundered these projects,
This is not relevant if its a deleted repository. I would suggest you focus on the new project you think is still in violation instead of referring to a completely different project if you want to hold a good stance.
In my opinion there's really no value in code anymore, I think the value should be what problem you are solving in a unique way. There are already millions of open-source projects on the internet and any one of them could have the same logic not because someone copied the other but because they were probably trying to solve the same problem and hence came to the same conclusion.
> Till now they still didn't answer me why they made the basic mistakes and how it was fixed.They avoid everything I ask about them unless I presure them very hard, they'll give a very vage respond that answers nothing.
As someone who has been in the industry for a long time, this comes off as entitled and demanding which may put the other party off and force them not to collaborate with you, I have seen this happen many times when people reach out to others to use their work as the foundation for a new work there is usually a sense of collaboration involved especially in OSS. When one party becomes entitled this is what causes forks and upstreams.
If you ask me as someone who has been in the same position as you it really is an easy fix. Simply reach back out in private since you've already been introduced without any anger or grandiosity (I know the situation can cause one to feel emotional). Someone arguing in good faith is always better than someone venting or spiraling. This will also be a good look for you and your project otherwise everyone one on the internet will just keep telling you what you want to hear but not the reality of how the industry work or how to actually fix it.
> it's totally not worth a "hall of shame"
You are right here. Imagine if every project that upstreamed another MIT or Apache project added this to their repository. An example would be if Feather Icons added Lucide Icons to their hall of shame because Lucide Icons created a derivative but still totally different work from Feather Icons. Also, Imagine someone added your own project to their hall of shame, you would no longer want to work with them would you? OSS has always been about community and collaboration. This is not it.
But my opinion are just mine feel free to approach this anyway you like but nobody wants the creators of the projects they use to have a bad look.
> I'm actually glad that someone finally appreciates my works and make them useful
I think you already have leverage here since they are most likely to even go out of their way to keep you happy but you just have to approach it from a sensible way especially if they are people with more resources than you which it seems if they where introduced by NativeScript.
> clearly indicates that they want to get something for nothing from the very beginning
Since they where introduced to you by a trusted party then your assessment on them trying to get something for nothing may not be true. Because bad actors would usually not bother in the first place. So its most likely they don't actually have any bad intentions and where probably put off by something else. Also you mentioned they Sponsored you in the hall of shame this is not the behavior of people with bad intentions. I'm just saying there is a possibility that you are seeing or approaching this wrongly.
> which we can all see in their licenses and in some file notices.
Not enough. If not they have lied to me, I won't care about the file-level attribution at all.
> I think the value should be what problem you are solving in a unique way
Yes, the code contain my own construction of a signal system implementation and my own algorithms that AI's can't get them shuffled or rewritten.
> which may put the other party off and force them not to collaborate with you
I actually assisted them pretty well at the beginning, until I discovered that they're lying. They reached me through NativeScript(which is proved to be another vitim of them later), and promise me that they're making a huge ambitious project that even Google and Meta failed.But they're making really really basic mistakes that even a noob should know where the problem is, and they didn't even try to address the problem themselves - I pointed out the problem, and they just refuse to investigate and debug, refusing it really hard. It's them that first starting to not cooperate.
> Also, Imagine someone added your own project to their hall of shame, you would no longer want to work with them would you?
This happens *after* their non-cooperation.
> which it seems if they where introduced by NativeScript.
NativeScript is also been lied to. They tell me that they plan to acquire NativeScript but failed at giving evidences that they have the ability to do so. When I asked NativeScript side about the acquision, they're shocked to hear this, and denied the possibility of being acquired as it is now a OpenJS Foundation project.
> Since they where introduced to you by a trusted party
That's their trick. They claim they worked for Nvidia, it tricks NativeScript and then they can use NativeScript's introduction to trick me. It is almost impossible to verify that they really worked for NV but it tricks people into beliving they're capable of something big, but actually they can't even debug such a simple problem on their own.
> Also you mentioned they Sponsored you in the hall of shame this is not the behavior of people with bad intentions.
It's also their trick. They want to get much more from me beyond the project itself, totally ignoring that I have my own projects and plan. Also the price they claim to pay for what I'm going to do is really really low, considering how ambitious the project is and how incapable themselves are.
This is the most appropriate lens through which to assess AI and its impact on open source, intellectual property, and other proprietary assets. Alongside this new form of collaboration comes a restructuring of power. It's not clear to me how our various societies will design this restructuring (so far we are collectively doing nearly nothing) but the restructuring of these power structures is not a technical process; it is cultural and political. Engineers will only offer so much help here.
For the most part, it is up to us to collectively orchestrate the new power structure, and I am still seeing very little literature on the topic. If anyone has a reading list, please share!
They surpass open source, "out-open source-opensouce" by learning skills everywhere and opening them up for anyone who needs them later.
I don't know if this was intentional misspelling or not but it's damn funny
One can setup a site to crowdsource laundering 8-10 second sections of an entire movie and then stitching it back.
the author is going good. it's not a new normal until everybody goes quiet
Recognition of realities is different from wishing for things to occur. If you think you can stop unethical people from AI washing your software, feel free to try, you will fail.
> If you think you can stop unethical people from AI washing your software, feel free to try, you will fail.
Posts like these = trying to stop unethical people from copyright (copyleft) washing. Telling people writing these posts that it's the new normal is basically saying they are doing pointless thing, while they are doing something very good
You can whine about something till you're dead, but incentives drive actions, full stop. Instead of whining about normalization, lobby lawmakers to make actual change and build tools to help creators detect the issue.
2 The incentives is to steal and rampage and rape. Some incentives deserve to die in fire, period. To change incentives we punish people or change people. Posts like these help
I think trying to shut up these efforts by saying this is "normal" is only done by people in that industry or invested in it who profit from this disaster
If the incentive was to steal and rampage and rape, people would be doing it more. The incentives are reversed though; 10 years in prison for rape, 6 years for stealing, and the odds are you will get caught eventually. If we removed law enforcement, there would be a lot more stealing and raping, though people would take justice in to their own hands as they did in cases of theft and rape in olden times.
Ultimately this is a dumb back and forth because we agree about the wrongness of the act, we just disagree about the best course of action and the ultimate value of certain approaches. You keep doing you, but if you really care about this I'd suggest you do something more productive than trying to high horse people on the internet about norms.
This doesn't mean anything. You have no ability to "normalize" anything. It's not an action that somebody can take.
> it's not a new normal until everybody goes quiet
Real let me speak to your manager energy. Nobody is waiting for you to go quiet to get on with things.
You can if you convince everyone to stop making a fuss because it's the new normal. The comment literally said "it's the new normal".
Normalisation isn't something that one person by themselves can achieve. It only happens when public opinion is swayed. How is it swayed? By people deliberately trying to sway it, like GP here.
If you are instead arguing that normalisation is not really a thing at all: What do you call the change in attitudes to people who are left-handed, disabled, or homosexual?
Internet plus AI implies the tragedy of the commons manifested in the digital world.