‹ 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. gspr · · focus · HN ↗
      Are you sure about this?

      An alternative near future is that what you're describing is used to undermine/rightswash strong copyleft free software for use in proprietary products, while owners of proprietary software (and big movie studios and record labels) start protecting themselves with EULAs forbidding ingestion of the works into LLMs.

      Another possibility is the one others sketched, where truly user-controlled models are legislated away.

      Do we really believe that Rockstar would be ok with someone feeding GTA6 to a hypothetical LLM and get a "free" reimplementation out? If that world were to come to fruition, I'd maybe buy the "best thing to happen to free software" story. Otherwise, my bets are on "complete and utter stomping of small IP rights holders in favor of giant ones". In that world, free software is in real trouble. Together with indie artists and writers. I lament how many people don't seem to take this scenario seriously.

      1. mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
        Free software is already used in proprietary products and without any washing. Go and buy any phone and then try to get a copy of the source code of all the GPL software on it. The phone maker will just laugh at you all the way to the bank.
        1. gspr · · focus · HN ↗
          "The law isn't being properly enforced" is still way better than "let's ignore the law".
          1. mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
            The law is whatever gets enforced.
            1. gspr · · focus · HN ↗
              This is such a bad take. It really isn't. For example, an unenforced or poorly enforced law can at any moment start to be enforced. Or powers can threaten to enforce it to compel behavior.

              This is vastly different from a law that doesn't exist.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.