Call for blanket ban on open source contribution or publishing
Where are the ethics and call for a blanket restrain from publishing.
While all the available AI models and probably future ones are going to be trained on publicly available data sets including but not limited to programming blogs, q & a sites, discussion forums, personal blogs, open source code, free books etc., almost all of the organisations behind the models have taken sources from all shady places and even pirated content and not to mention the art works - photos, paintings, music from various digital galleries, digital shops, streaming platforms etc., etc., and I don't have to list all sources.
While it is all good for the training, the same is being targetted towards the fellow programmers, creators, writers who thrive on their creations and the way of work.
If one looks at from a perspective of someone trying to do something that is dependent on creative people, the generative AI based creation has taken over the process and has killed or killing millions of people who are dependent. Now, most of the argument is not about the replacement, but rather why don't one use AI to support the process. Well, that's just a deviation from this article's motto and it is not disagreed.
When people published their work as open source, not even in their dreams they would have thought that such breach of private information and intellectual properties will be swindled by such corrupt, for profit organisations to train something that will eventually replace them. Why is that no-one wants to voice against or take legal action. I'm aware that there are a lot of class action lawsuits and uproar against many companies, but the damage is already done.
So, I'm proposing the following:
- As how the publicly available materials were used to train whatever AI model, give it away for free. (It was wrong in the first place to use it with / without consent - If one had invested, it's their issue. Don't want to talk about CAPEX / OPEX etc,.). - Or pay for every open piece of information that was used in training (this is not an option due to the copyright and copyleft and other mindless licenses that govern OSS and other free to use media!) - Stop doing it - It will not happen...
Any other thoughts / rants?
While I have expressed some of my thoughts, I want the communities thoughts to collectively action. Please spend a few minutes to voice out whether in support or against, but be concise in expressing your thoughts so that all can be collated, presented and actioned (probably!) in the near future.
Thanks again.
Totally agree. Open source is also a way for big corporations to kill competition. It is used as a noble cover for a price war - extreme price reduction to zero. Open source must be followed by the demand of not for profit use only! If any piece of open source code is used then a whole product/service must be made free. Only then can open source be honest.
> If any piece of open source code is used then a whole product/service must be made free.
That's not how most software licenses work, in reality.
> When people published their work as open source, not even in their dreams they would have thought that such breach of private information and intellectual properties will be swindled by such corrupt, for profit organisations to train something that will eventually replace them.
I can. None of that dissuaded me.
You can use my GPL software to build a nuclear bomb and kill millions of people. I wouldn't sue, unless I found out you modified it and redistributed the bomb without sharing the source code.
Perfectly agree to the mindset.
While I don't care thought process is applicable to the one who has published the code, the same is being used (internally, without giving away any kind of attribution and what not?) by for profit entities to eventually replace the same being.
What I wanted to convey is that if one fails to see the other side of the coin, there is no turning back and it has already progressed / progressing enough to wipe out everyone because of such mindset.
"Wipe out everyone" is a ridiculous extrapolation. If your job is threatened by my FOSS, even through AI as a surrogate, then good riddance.
Again, there is no point in arguing with someone who fails to see the viewpoint.
Sometimes it's futile to get into mindless discussions when one takes it to heart and does not think otherwise.
The point which I wanted to make was the collective destruction.
It is funny sometimes how people get hooked onto a single word and then jump to their reply without taking a step or two back to see what is being discussed.
Such unwanted arrogance and public display of anger is of no use in public internet where nameless, faceless entities voice out the thoughts. That clearly shows how short-circuited one's own mindset is...
That being said... Good riddance of such characters... Through AI...
Eventually it will replace everyone and everything... For sure... No one will be spared... No matter how great one thinks he is in coding... It is his knowledge that will be used against him... As simple as it may sound, but that's the reality.
Being a blind-eyed-joe is not going to help and being showing arrogance is of no use!
heh with the attitude..
:-D
From MAGA to MAIGA!
I said... There you go...
Destroying what? Precious value for C-suites to exploit, money to lure you into the life of luxury alongside them? I don't care about that. To be frank with you, 99% of those seats were outsourced before the 2008 financial crisis to Pakistan and India already. Those people already lost their jobs, your coding skills are only worth whatever the market will pay you for them. Go look at the running rate for a Javascript SRE, it's been through the floor for a decade.
My overall point is that I've already cast my die. The only thing I care about vis-a-vis the licensing of my software is protecting my users from commercial exploitation. You won't convince me or anyone to take a stand against contribution because someone might try to vibe-code an alternative. FOSS, particularly examples like Linux and Git, aren't just popular because they're free. They're popular because they're well-supported, standardized, transparent, secure and peer-reviewed. Don't take my word for it, ask anyone you know that works in a Fortune 500 business. Nobody is afraid of libcurl being erased from history because Google vibe-coded an alternative and BSD-licensed it.
So - what is the hard sell here? I'm a grown-up, I can understand the economics of the situation. How is my manager going to put me out of a job with Claude 7.0? What org structure can survive if engineers leave the company? Have you even thought this through, or are you parroting the hype machine without a causal understanding of the argument?
I can be convinced that AI is a bad thing. But you can't convince me to stop writing Open Source software because it endangers people's jobs, even my own. For fuck's sake, I publish this code free of charge for the express purpose of saving everyone the trouble of writing it themselves, as long as they follow the rules of my license. I don't owe anyone the right to be valuable to a business, no more than Pakistanis lost sleep imagining the starving residents of Redmond, Washington whose jobs they'd subsumed. Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.
Well said. I agree to your view points of continuing to write and publish opensource.
It is not going to change anything and heck yeah, if it is going to help people and save sometime to re-use or use whatever that is published, continue.
While not having to worry about the consequences, is a good thing because sometimes, all the scientific research is in the same boat until it is misused...
Nothing in the world is going to change by a few developers stopping to publish their work as the damage is already done and beyond containment.
The same is applicable for bug bounties as well, but that's for another day!