I have some projects I've been working on over a year. Sitting down working making design decisions. Research. Using ai doesn't mean I did no work. It doesn't matter if the ai was trained. I still did work.
I don't understand this view point. Using ai and making high quality stuff is not pushing a button. Its hard. It takes real effort and diligence. And you have to pay actual money out of pocket to deliver it.
It's unfortunate that you had to pay actual money and effort, but there was also actual money and effort involved in the projects on which the LLM output is based.
When a carpenter crafts a chair, the tree first had to make effort to generate the wood.
Because chairs are in effect an open source design, does that mean carpenters shouldn't get paid?
Its nonsensical.
I think that people who believe these arguments have bought into ai hype too much and genuinely are fooled into thinking pressing a button to spit out boiler plate code somehow equates to a genuine saleable product. It doesn't and it won't. And that stuff shouldn't be open source because it's a waste of everyone's time to consume.
And however hard a carpenter might work on a chair, if he copies a protected design he can't sell the chair.
However much work you might add on top of other people's copyrighted code, you don't get to sell it and use it however you want if you don't have the permission of the original authors.
> However much work you might add on top of other people's copyrighted code, you don't get to sell it and use it however you want if you don't have the permission of the original authors.
It gets even more hilarious when you realise that the GP (tim) does not consider that, if you make the output of AI that was trained on copyrighted material legal to re-copyright, then it applies to him as well - all that hard work he did can be used chucked into an LLM either as context, or via LoRA, or even via simple explorative usage via tool calls, and then regenerated from that LLM, taking away whatever copyright the product had by generating a competing clone.
The difference between the input to the carpenter and the output of the carpenter is significantly greater than the input from you to the LLM, and the output of LLM. Majority of the alterations to the wood by the carpenter produced the chair. The words you typed into an LLM are less than 0.000000001% of the total inputs that it took to create its output (because training data counts, and it’s a lot bigger than anything you may have typed)
Absolutely. There is so much variability in the code that can be generated for a particular purpose. I do hundreds of iterations before my LLM-generated code reaches the desired shape. The built harness, the written AGENTS.md and the iterations affects what is written greatly.
And at least of the level of feeling the answer is that it is my code.
It also takes effort to copy something, right? Say I made a copy of a book by hand, does my effort make it any less of a copy?
Say I am stealing stuff that’s really heavy, can I demand I earned it because it was a lot of effort?
I am not trying to be facetious. I also question property rights because someone overpowered someone else to make that property theirs at some point in time. Whose effort is earned, and whose is robbery?
As far as I can tell we picked an arbitrary time after which all forced acquisition is considered robbery.
That being said, open source is for everyone to benefit. Violating an open source license is sort of a crime against everyone, not just the creator.
> I have some projects I've been working on over a year. Sitting down working making design decisions. Research. Using ai doesn't mean I did no work. It doesn't matter if the ai was trained. I still did work.
> I don't understand this view point. Using ai and making high quality stuff is not pushing a button. Its hard. It takes real effort and diligence. And you have to pay actual money out of pocket to deliver it.
You seem to believe that because you put months of work into this, you should have rights over the result, right?
But once you release, anyone can spend a few dozens of dollars and replicate it. Do they get the same rights over the clone that you got over your product, even though you potentially spent months coming up with it and they cloned it in a day?
There's really only two answers to this - either you agree that they should get the same rights over the clone that you got over your product, or you don't agree that they should have the same rights over their clone that you have over your product.
In either case, you are not better off:
1. If they get the same rights over the clone that you get on your product, you can't really stop people cloning your stuff, adding a feature or two, removing another feature or two, and then release something better than you for 1/10th of the cost of production.
2. If they don't get the same rights as you did because they used your product as training material for a clone, then wtf do you get any rights at all, after using millions of other people's products as training material?
I don't see any scenario where there is an outcome beneficial to you. Do you?
I don't understand this view point. Using ai and making high quality stuff is not pushing a button. Its hard. It takes real effort and diligence. And you have to pay actual money out of pocket to deliver it.
Because chairs are in effect an open source design, does that mean carpenters shouldn't get paid?
Its nonsensical.
I think that people who believe these arguments have bought into ai hype too much and genuinely are fooled into thinking pressing a button to spit out boiler plate code somehow equates to a genuine saleable product. It doesn't and it won't. And that stuff shouldn't be open source because it's a waste of everyone's time to consume.
Chairs can be covered by design protection.
And however hard a carpenter might work on a chair, if he copies a protected design he can't sell the chair.
However much work you might add on top of other people's copyrighted code, you don't get to sell it and use it however you want if you don't have the permission of the original authors.
It gets even more hilarious when you realise that the GP (tim) does not consider that, if you make the output of AI that was trained on copyrighted material legal to re-copyright, then it applies to him as well - all that hard work he did can be used chucked into an LLM either as context, or via LoRA, or even via simple explorative usage via tool calls, and then regenerated from that LLM, taking away whatever copyright the product had by generating a competing clone.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50509402
And at least of the level of feeling the answer is that it is my code.
Say I am stealing stuff that’s really heavy, can I demand I earned it because it was a lot of effort?
I am not trying to be facetious. I also question property rights because someone overpowered someone else to make that property theirs at some point in time. Whose effort is earned, and whose is robbery?
As far as I can tell we picked an arbitrary time after which all forced acquisition is considered robbery.
That being said, open source is for everyone to benefit. Violating an open source license is sort of a crime against everyone, not just the creator.
> I don't understand this view point. Using ai and making high quality stuff is not pushing a button. Its hard. It takes real effort and diligence. And you have to pay actual money out of pocket to deliver it.
You seem to believe that because you put months of work into this, you should have rights over the result, right?
But once you release, anyone can spend a few dozens of dollars and replicate it. Do they get the same rights over the clone that you got over your product, even though you potentially spent months coming up with it and they cloned it in a day?
There's really only two answers to this - either you agree that they should get the same rights over the clone that you got over your product, or you don't agree that they should have the same rights over their clone that you have over your product.
In either case, you are not better off:
1. If they get the same rights over the clone that you get on your product, you can't really stop people cloning your stuff, adding a feature or two, removing another feature or two, and then release something better than you for 1/10th of the cost of production.
2. If they don't get the same rights as you did because they used your product as training material for a clone, then wtf do you get any rights at all, after using millions of other people's products as training material?
I don't see any scenario where there is an outcome beneficial to you. Do you?