“Wait, not like that”: Free and open access in the age of generative AI

I hate this take. "Open source" is not "public domain" or "free reign to do whatever the hell you want with no acknowledgement to the original creator." Even the most permissive MIT license has terms that every single AI company shamelessly violate. All code derived from open source code need to at the very least reference the original author, so unless the AI can reliably and accurately cite where the code it generates came from, all AI generated code that gets incorporated into any publicly distributed software violates the license of every single open source project it has ever scraped.

That's saying nothing about projects with copyleft licenses that place conditions on how the code can then be distributed. Can AI reliably avoid using information from those codebases when generating proprietary code? No? And that's not a problem because?

I absolutely hate the hypocrisy that permeates the discourse around AI and copyright. Knocking off Studio Ghibli's art style is apparently the worst atrocity you can commit but god forbid open source developers, most of whom are working for free, have similar complaints about how their work is used.

Just because you "can't" obey the license terms due to some technical limitation doesn't mean you deserve a free pass from them. It means the technology is either too immature to be used or shouldn't be used at all. Also, why aren't they using LLMs when scraping to read the licenses and exclude anything other than pure public domain? Or better yet, use literally last century's technology to read the robots.txt and actually respect it. It's not even a technical limitation, it's a case of doing the right thing is too restrictive and won't allow us to accomplish what we want to do so we demand the right thing be expanded to what we're trying to do.

Open source only has anywhere between one and two core demands: Credit me for my work and potentially distribute derivatives in a way I can still take advantage of. And even that's not good enough for these AI chuds, they think we're the unreasonable ones for having these demands and not letting them use our code with no strings attached.

This is where many creators find themselves today, particularly in response to AI training. But the solutions they're reaching for — more restrictive licenses, paywalls, or not publishing at all — risk destroying the very commons they originally set out to build.

Yeah blame the people getting exploited and not the people doing the exploiting why don't you.

Particularly with AI, there’s also no indication that tightening the license even works. We already know that major AI companies have been training their models on all rights reserved works in their ongoing efforts to ingest as much data as possible. Such training may prove to have been permissible in US courts under fair use, and it’s probably best that it does.

No. Fuck that. There's nothing fair about scraping an independent creator's website (costing them real money) and then making massive profits from it. The creator literally fucking paid to have their work stolen.

If a kid learns that carbon dioxide traps heat in Earth's atmosphere or how to calculate compound interest thanks to an editor’s work on a Wikipedia article, does it really matter if they learned it via ChatGPT or by asking Siri or from opening a browser and visiting Wikipedia.org?

Yes. And the fact that it's stolen isn't even the biggest problem by a long shot. In fact, even Wikipedia is a pretty shitty source, do what your high school teacher said you should do and search Wikipedia for citations, not the articles themselves.

Don't let AI teach you anything you can't instantly verify with an authoritative source. It doesn't know anything and therfore can't teach anything by definition.

Instead of worrying about “wait, not like that”, I think we need to reframe the conversation to [...] “wait, not in ways that threaten open access itself”.

Okay, let's do that then. All AI training threaten open access itself. If not by ensuring the creator can never make money to sustain their work, then by LITERALLY COSTING THE CREATORS MONEY WHEN THEIR CONTENT IS SCRAPED! So the conclusion hasn't changed.

The true threat from AI models training on open access material is not that more people may access knowledge thanks to new modalities. It’s that those models may stifle Wikipedia and other free knowledge repositories, benefiting from the labor, money, and care that goes into supporting them while also bleeding them dry. It’s that trillion dollar companies become the sole arbiters of access to knowledge after subsuming the painstaking work of those who made knowledge free to all, killing those projects in the process.

And how does shaming the victims of that knowledge theft for having the audacity to try and do something about it help exactly?

Anyone at an AI company who stops to think for half a second should be able to recognize they have a vampiric relationship with the commons.

[...]

And yet many AI companies seem to give very little thought to this,

"Anyone at a Southern slave plantation who stops to think for half a second should be able to recognize they have a vampiric relationship with their black slaves." Yeah, they know. That's the point.

I think 75% is apt here, tailwind is incredibly popular and most people wouldn't know how many engineers they have. If it said "tailwind let 3 people go" I bet most (including me) would assume alright.. tailwinds big they may have 30-50 people around.. 3 is not too bad right?

I also disagree with this being entirely bullshit, I think he is right that the impact of AI has made the situation worse for him by impacting his most valuable sales funnel (their own documentation pages). But separately, it is a very populated space (UI libraries) with multiple options to compete with, some of which are rather well established and free - so it was an uphill battle to begin with.

I'm seeing it quite a lot on mastodon where maintainers from big projects, like even curl, are expressing their grief and annoyance with ai generated bug reports wasting their time and overwhelming them. I don't think it's an isolated incident.

Which means they had to lay off 3 of of their 4 member engineering team

see https://programming.dev/post/43956110/21568407