That's people problems though, namely:

1) Lazy peers, and

2) Spiteful peers with "dog in the manger" mentality.

The latter case personally irks me, mostly because this often involves personal benefit (economical or moral) due to them claiming to give away knowledge for altruistic reasons, which later behavior reveals was a lie, mislabeling proprietary as open and free, to reap unfair gains.

But that's all off-topic for this thread anyway.

▲

gwbas1c 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Spiteful peers with "dog in the manger" mentality.

Last night my daughter told me her friend (a boy) signed up to take the last spot of a baking class at camp just to spite his sister, who wanted it.

Turns out he liked baking!

---

I think this whole discussion shows that there's a lot of Calvinball going on with IP, where the creator keeps trying to change the rules as a way to defend their power and social order.

▲

3ash87 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Why don't you create something so that you, too, can join the evil class of creators that exploit OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX?

▲

shimman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This may blow your mind but people have different value systems than the single one where only making money matters in our incredibly short lives. Some people believe in things other than accumulating money and immiserating workers.

Your failure of imagination doesn't limit the actions people can take to shape society. We all have equal voices in that respect.

I truly feel sorry for those with your mindset. It speaks volumes on the lack of community and friends you have where you think fucking them over to make money is a worthy pursuit.

They use to banish greedy people from society in the before times, maybe we should start again as these people have no problem in destroying society for religious fanatical reasons. We shouldn't be accepting of them, especially when they're actively killing us all or making us miserable.

▲

iu123 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You are preaching this is response to a comment that mocks the notion that creators are the evil people while OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX exploit them?

The comment was clearly satirical.

	▲	gwbas1c 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, one of the articles on HN a few days ago pointed out that a lot of the wealthy spend a lot of their time and energy preserving the social order. (It was a long article trying to predict what people will do when they don't need to work.) To be quite blunt: I really don't think anyone who sells (or gives) IP to the general public has any right to control what happens to that IP after a fair period of time. That's why I say they're playing Calvinball: Changing the rules as they go for their benefit, so they can preserve the social order.
	▲	shimman 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Nah, some tech people really believe this. You need to get out of your bubble and realize a nontrivial percentage of tech workers are very anti-human.

▲

shepardrtc 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People creating free software for everyone to use, only to pull it away when suddenly there's a technology that can instantly let everyone use it at the drop of a hat, is not something I quite understand. If you're doing it so you show people, hey I made this, then you can still do that. If you're doing it to help the world, then that's very much happening. Of if you're doing it just for fun, that's possible too, though I totally understand how much less fun it is when AI can rip it out in a few minutes.

	▲	antihipocrat 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Some of it might be loss of external validation, no more stars in github. Some of it might be an aversion to a non-consensual contribution to the end of their chosen profession as a means to make a good living. Much of it might be because their license (MIT, BSD etc) was ignored completely.
	▲	Retric 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		People have multiple motivations at the same time. Many OSS contributors have moved on after LLM’s and that’s completely consistent with their motivations. Some of the major OSS licenses require attribution when someone copies the work in question, AI companies fail to do so. People getting annoyed when others break the social contract has nothing to do with any other motives they can always benefit the world by doing something else. You may prefer someone continue maintaining infrastructure you use but they could be just as happy delivering food to the elderly. The desire for people to continue helping you is little more than entitlement here.
	▲	nz 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		People were always able to "instantly use it at the drop of a hat" (paraphrased). What people are objecting to, is instant use without any acknowledgement or attribution (the minimum courtesy). They also object to being mistreated by people who have never actually had to type characters of code into a text-editor, or figure out how to use a build-system and version-control-system. And finally, they object to having their _free_ and _generous_ labor turn millionaires into billionaires (and billionaires into trillionaires), while they themselves still have to pay that one mortgage they have, and medical bills, and tuition, and so on. They object to the systematized devaluing of their work. They object to becoming a class of invisible laborers (who only become visible when there is need to blame someone).
	▲	latexr 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> is not something I quite understand I can only speak for myself, but right now working on open-source is even more thankless and shitty. Now any douche-knuckle comes to your repo and starts spamming you with bad PRs or issues as if their favourite LLM du jour has some fantastical insight they have to share with you, when it has already been explained ad nauseam that what they want is out of scope, or isn’t technically possible, or has tradeoffs XYZ. You had lazy people before, sure, but those interactions were less frequent, shorter, and for each person I used to craft a careful response that would explain everything in detail and teach those I interacted with. But why would I waste my time crafting a reply that the person on the other side is just going to shove into their LLM and learn nothing? Regarding open-source, LLMs make people more disrespectful of the people doing the work. And if you’re sharing your expertise for free to be disrespected, why bother?
	▲	3ash87 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

latexr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> That's people problems though

And the people make the culture. So, in effect, the culture suffered. I think you’re taking the original comment too literally with your “piracy is theft” comparison. Obviously you can’t literally rob culture¹, because culture is a concept. But you can lose something from it, and that loss can have a cause you can point to, so in a way elements of it can be “robbed”.

That’s what I get from the original comment when I steelman it, anyway.

¹ Sounds like the name of a Rob Zombie associate.