[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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know if this was intentional misspelling or not but it's damn funny
Internet plus AI implies the tragedy of the commons manifested in the digital world.
