> rip the livelyhood from under millions of people's feet
I have never gotten this. How is livelihood being "ripped away"? There is enormous capability made available to anyone and everyone who wants to take hold of and do something with it. Just as it's on each individual to go through the process and pains of landing a job (or building a business, etc), it's also on each individual to keep up with changes that may affect their livelihood. If they want to keep it.
Who does it benefit to automate away well paid industries? For every well paid industry mostly automated away, you remove one more path for financial mobility.
One less path available means more people doomed to the service economy serfdom. You can be incredibly intelligent, creative, personable, and driven, but bad luck can still doom you to the role of a serf.
It's incredibly naive to assume the pattern of the short history of industrialization will continue. More jobs may have been created in the past, but where are those plans for the future? Why is it imperative we accept the plans of people making money hand over fist, while also forced to endure the hardships of adapting?
Jeff Bezos won't have difficulties adapting, but the average citizen will lose their healthcare and get beaten by a cop for protesting their own social murder.
Pure automation and efficiency can't be the one true path if we want to maintain our current economic system. Capitalism needs waste and inefficiency. It has little room for charity when the shareholders are the end beneficiary.
Most businesses do not have the capacity to use LLMs to produce software. If you have an idea that you can create into real high quality software that there is a demand for, then you should absolutely do it.
I think this article is making a pretty big assumption: that people making things with AI are also going to be publishing them. And that's just the opposite of what should be expected, for the general case.
Like I've been making things, and making changes to things, but I haven't published any of that because, well they're pretty specific to my needs. There are also things which I won't consider publishing for now, even if generally useful because, well the moat has moved from execution effort to ideas, and we all want to maintain some kind of moat to boost our market value (while there's still one). Everyone has reasonable access to the same capabilities now, so everyone can reasonably make what they need according to their exact specs easily, quickly and cheaply.
So while there are many things being made with AI, there is ever-decreasing reasons to publish most of it. We're in an era of highly personalized software, which just isn't worth generalizing and sharing as the effort is now greater than creating from scratch or modifying something already close enough.
> I think this article is making a pretty big assumption: that people making things with AI are also going to be publishing them. And that's just the opposite of what should be expected, for the general case.
The premise is that AI has already fundamentally changed the nature of software engineering. Not some specific, personal use case, but that everything has changed and that if you're not embracing these tools, you'll perish. In light of this, I don't think your rebuttal works. We should be seeing evidence of meaningful AI contributions all over the place.
Agree. There's also a weird ideological thing in open source right now, where any AI must be AI slop, and no AI is the only solution. That has strongly disincentivized legitimate contributions from people. I have to imagine that's having an impact.
There's a very real problem of low effort AI slop, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the solution.
That said, I do kind of wonder if the old model of open source just isn't very good in the AI era. Maybe when AI gets a lot better, but for now it does take real human effort to review and test. If contributors were reviewing and testing like they should be doing, it wouldn't be an issue, but far too many people just run AI and don't even look at it before sending the PR. It's not the maintainers job to do all the review and test of a low-effort push. That's not fair to them, and even discarding that it's a terrible model for software that you share with anyone else.
You know what else strongly disincentivized legitimate contributions from people?
Having your code snatched and its copyright disregarded, to the benefit of some rando LLM vendor. People can just press "pause" and wait until they see whether they fuel something that brings joy to the world. (Which it might in the end. Or not.)
For sure, that's legit too. I've had to grapple with that feeling personally. I didn't get to a great place, other than hoping that AI is democratized enough that it can benefit humanity. When I introspected deep enough, I realized I contributed to open source for two reasons, nearly equally:
1. To benefit myself with features/projects
2. To benefit others with my work
1 by itself would mean no bothering with PR, modifications, etc. It's way easier to hoard your changes than to go through the effort getting them merged upstream. 2 by itself isn't enough motivation to spend the effort getting up to speed on the codebase, testing, etc. Together though, it's powerful motivation for me.
I have to remind myself that both things are a net positive with AI training on my stuff. It's certainly not all pros (there's a lot of cons with AI too), but on the whole I think we're headed for a good destination, assuming open models continue to progress. If it ends up with winner-takes-all Anthropic or OpenAI, then that changes my calculus and will probably really piss me off. Luckily I've gotten positive value back from those companies, even considering having to pay for it.
Been going back and forth on this with open source tools I've built. The training data argument is valid, but honestly the more immediate version of the same problem is that someone can just take your repo, feed it to an agent, and have their own fork in an afternoon.
The moat used to be effort, nobody wants to rewrite this from scratch (especially when it's free). What's left is actually understanding why the thing works the way it does. Not sure that's enough to sustain open source long-term? I guess we all have to get used to it?
> but honestly the more immediate version of the same problem is that someone can just take your repo, feed it to an agent, and have their own fork in an afternoon.
Indeed, I've got a few applications I've built or contributed too that are (A)?GPL, and for those I do worry about this AI washing technique. For libraries that are MIT or permissive anyway, I don't really care. (I default to *GPL for applications, MIT/Apache/etc for libraries)
> That has strongly disincentivized legitimate contributions from people.
Citation needed. I'm seeing the opposite effect: that embracing AI slop in OSS is turning off human contributors who are aghast at projects not standing firm against the incursion of LLMs…even going so far as to fork projects prior to the introduction of slop. (I'm already using slop-free forked software, and I suspect this trend will grow which is sad but necessary.)
>where any AI must be AI slop, and no AI is the only solution.
AI as of now is like ads. Ads as a concept are not evil. But what it's done to everyday life is evil enough that I wouldn't flinch at them being banned/highly regulated one day (well, not much. The economic fallout would be massive, but my QoL would go way up).
That's how I feel here. And looking at the PRs some popular repos have to deal with, we're well into the "shove this pop up ad with a tiny close button you can't reach easily" stage of AI.
Sticking a piece of steel between two wooden planks is not inherently evil. Until we declare it to be unethical in some settings, and codify a law against "breaking and entering".
> where any AI must be AI slop, and no AI is the only solution
Yep, also a huge factor. Why publish something you built with an AI assistant if you know it's going to be immediately dunked on not because the quality may be questionable, but because someone sees an em-dash, or an AI coauthor, and immediately goes on a warpath? Heck I commented[0] on the attitude just a few hours ago. I find it really irritating.
There's "questionable quality", and then "4,681 open pull requests for Godot on GitHub", of which you expect 90% of them to be Ai generated with little care (many may not even compile nor pass tests).
For sure that's a real problem, but there are good solutions besides just banning AI use completely. You event mentioned some: (many may not even compile nor pass tests). If it doesn't compile and pass tests, don't even look at it. If sits for 30 days with no activity, automatically close it. It's not perfect, but then neither is blanket banning of AI.
It's a matter of honesty and trust. A company that has never provided source code is more honest and trustworthy than one that provides source code, extracts community labor (by accepting issues and/or PRs) and then makes off with said labor (even if they left a frozen version available) at a future point.
Does the amount of labor that was provided by a community make a difference? What if it was minimal? Where do you draw the line (any piece of code accepted, or a "large portion" of code)?
I didn't downvote you, but I suspect combining PRs with issues is what most people have an issue with. Issues obviously help to improve software, but only through the fixing or writing of new code.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I also think that if it were a requirement to never close source your project after it's already been open sourced, we'd have far fewer projects available that are open source. Often a project is created on a company's dime, and open source, to draw attention to the developer skills and ability to solve a problem. If the code was legally disallowed to be close sourced in the future, we might see far less code available universally. A working repository of code is potentially a reference for another developer to learn something new. I don't have any examples, but I know for a fact that I've read code that had been open source, and later close sourced, and learned something from the open source version (even if it was out of date for the latest libraries/platform).
> a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up
More like a company took advantage of a community that expected their freely offered labor to not be commercialized at any point in time without making available said works in a fully free vector as well, as that's an implicit expectation behind "open source".
It would be helpful for everyone if that community would pause before contributing to code bases with licenses which allow for that. MIT, BSD, Apache, …
It would be helpful for them because they’ll know what they’re getting into. For us because we won’t have to see this tragedy unfold time and time again. And for all open source users because more efforts will be directed towards programs with licenses that protect end users. GPL, AGPL, …
It will be a little worse for companies seeking free labor. A price I’m willing to pay.
It looks like it's Apache licensed, so this was the expected and intended outcome for contributors. If they wanted their work to remain free and not become proprietary, they should have only contributed under perma-free licenses like GPL.
Companies stand to turn a profit. OSS is here to help enable that or push the goal posts. It’s not a charity unless the org feels charitable. Sure, non-profits exist but they were never one of those.
I think the comment on corpos is good, but calling the naive people fools might be unnecessary - it’s probably not their fault nobody told them about this sort of thing before and learning that lesson is probably disappointing enough already.
It’s unfortunate that this keeps happening to projects like MinIO and others too.
Sure! Slightly edited the tone, but I’m noticing that often people have idealistic attitudes about FOSS until they get burnt by bad faith actors or even just indifferent corps that have to keep the lights on. Quite unfortunate, definitely not their fault. Pity is correct.
It’s definitely pity. It’s a hard pill to swallow when you were led to believe a certain world view of an entity only to find out they were milking your data.
A thing cannot be considered free/open source if there are restrictions on what users can do with it. If a maintainer wishes to put a "don't compete commercially" license then it should be clearly labelled as source available, not open source. To do otherwise is to deceive the open source community, which has a particular and well defined understanding of what "open source" entails.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
A non-commercial clause is a discrimination against a field of endeavor and thus non-open-source. The license cannot restrict how the user is able to *use* the software and still be open source. There can however be requirements to distribute the source code when distributing the software, ala GPL.
I like it. Enjoyed having it with Conda, was sorry when it was lost with uv. Been a pain to search my projects and have irrelevant results that I then have to filter. Or to remember to filter in the first place. The venvs may be associated with the projects, but they're just extraneous clutter unless there's actually something to be done directly on them, which is very rare.
Hmm I've never thought of having notes available on my lockscreen. Hardly even ever see it because face+fingerprint unlock combo.
I've been using Orgzly[0] as my note taker (and a lot more) and ButtonMaster[1] for rapid access. Unlock phone, swipe the floating BM button left, type my note (and maybe add properties, keywords and more) and hit save. Just now realizing too that it also supports creating notes via its notification. Never thought of using STT, but I have FUTO Keyboard[2] so that's also handled. And Syncthing[3] keeps it all synced with my laptop. All working together seamlessly for years.
I have never gotten this. How is livelihood being "ripped away"? There is enormous capability made available to anyone and everyone who wants to take hold of and do something with it. Just as it's on each individual to go through the process and pains of landing a job (or building a business, etc), it's also on each individual to keep up with changes that may affect their livelihood. If they want to keep it.
reply