‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

AI and the Destruction of the Creative Commons

236 points · 282 comments · rakel_rakel

  1. grumbel · · focus · HN ↗
    I really don't get those takes. AI is the best thing that ever happened to the Free Software world, it is basically turning any software into Free Software. You can just throw file formats, protocols or even plain binaries at the AI and it'll reverse engineer everything in a pinch. Users can finally modify software themselves, which was always the goal of the Free Software world, but very rarely happened in actuality, since it was just so damn complicated. AI lowered the barrier of entry tremendously, not just in terms of required knowledge, but especially time. Same with Creative Commons, sharing art and stuff, was a nice gesture, but rarely useful, since the level of work to modify a work to fit your project was pretty close to just doing it from scratch anyway. With AI everybody can toy around with image generators and get what they want.

    Is a social contract being broken? Yeah, kind of, but the problems that that contract existed to solve are no longer a thing. Creation is now easy and commodified. We finally have computer we can interact with in natural language, something people tried to do for at least 70 years and never made any significant progress on until LLM arrived.

    If you want to gatekeep or only create stuff to boost your own ego or portfolio, then AI might be an issue, if you actually want to build stuff, AI is godsend. We are essentially living in the StarTrek future with Holodecks and replicators and people still find reason to complain.

    1. rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
      > If you want to gatekeep or only create stuff to boost your own ego or portfolio, then AI might be an issue, if you actually want to build stuff, AI is godsend.

      Exactly this. I've been very confused by the free software advocates that seemed to hate AI until I realized their reasons for releasing software under an open source license were very different than what I assumed they were.

      1. za_creature · · focus · HN ↗
        While Stallman may have been originally upset about his printer, the primary motivation behind open source software is:

        Nothing up my sleeve.

        This of course requires audit and that requires that the code is written for human consumption, otherwise nobody will bother. Sure you can vibe a printer driver but how sure are you that your LLM didn't include a backdoor in the millions line of slop?

        1. williamcotton · · focus · HN ↗
          How sure are you that any printer driver didn’t include a backdoor? What’s the difference between the LLM code with the backdoor and the human code with the backdoor?
          1. za_creature · · focus · HN ↗
            The ability to audit the code.

            If not that, the ability to trust the reputation of the author which creates an incentive not to willingly insert a backdoor.

            Yes, `npm install` was always bullshit because most people didn't bother to check, which is exactly why it was exploited multiple times, which created a conversation about "supply chain security".

            If you want to argue that "npm changed the world" then you are correct. It did not change the world for the better though.

            1. williamcotton · · focus · HN ↗
              Why is LLM code always harder to audit?

              So LLMs might decide to add backdoors without prompting?

              1. za_creature · · focus · HN ↗
                I'm less worried about what LLMs decide and more about what their system prompts tell them to do.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.