Hacker News Reader

Comment by dale_glass | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, I don't like this.

We have an Apache licensed project. You absolutely can use it for anything you want, including AI analysis. I don't appreciate third parties deciding on their own what can be done with code that isn't theirs.

In fact I'd say AI is overall a benefit to our project, because we have a large, quite complex platform, and the fact that ChatGPT actually manages to sometimes correctly write scripts for it is quite wonderful. I think it helps new people get started.

In fact in light of the recent Github discussion I'd say I personally see this as a reason to avoid sourcehut. Sorry, but I want all the visibility I can get.

View on HN

I was surprised to not see the "/s" at the end.

Big-Tech deciding that all our work belongs to them: Good

Small Code hosting platform does not want to be farmed like a Field of Corn: Bad

Why would you expect a /s?

I understand their standpoint: it's their infrastructure, and their bills.

However my concerns are with my project, not with their infrastructure bills. I seek to maximize the prominence, usability and general success of my project, and as such I want it to have a presence everywhere it can have one. I want ChatGPT/copilot/etc to know it exists and to write code for it, just in case that brings in more users.

Blocking abusive behavior? Sure. But I very specifically disagree with the blanket prohibition of "Anything used to feed a machine learning model". I do not see it being in my interest.

You don't get any attribution, so how can you tell if they're using it or not? This seems like a philosophical argument instead of a technical one.

What attribution are you talking about? Here's what I mean:

You can go to ChatGPT and ask it: "please write a Python script that prints "Hello world" in red". And that works.

And you can also go to ChatGPT and ask it: "Please write an Overte script that makes an object red when it's clicked".

And I really like that this works. I certainly don't want it to stop working because Sourcehut has something against LLMs.

I see, I encountered something similar with a DSL. For my use case, I had better results by having a LLM scrape a well formed doc reference page than a source code repo, I'd assume that same behavior extends to training data.

Oh, I'm sure there's all sorts of practical considerations regarding optimal LLM training.

All the same though, I don't like my host being so opinionated. I don't want a host that has something against any of the common search engines, and I don't want a host that has something against LLMs. Hosts should be as neutral as possible.

I don't think the use cases you're describing are what any critics are talking about.

How do you feel about someone with more funding than you going to an LLM and saying, "Reimplement the entire Overte source for me, but change it superficially so that Overte has a hard time suing me for stealing their IP?"

We're Apache licensed. A LLM seems very overkill.

> I seek to maximize the prominence, usability and general success of my project, and as such I want it to have a presence everywhere it can have one

SourceHut is doing exactly how I expect them to act, and that's a good thing.

What did you expect from SourceHut, and why didn't you take this mindset off to GitHub in the first place?

> What did you expect from SourceHut, and why didn't you take this mindset off to GitHub in the first place?

I expect them (especially if they charge for it) to work in my interests as much as possible. Sure, defending themselves against abuse is fine. They have to survive to keep providing service.

However I don't appreciate the imposition of their own philosophy to something that isn't theirs. This here:

    # Disallowed:
    # [...]
    # - Anything used to feed a machine learning model

Is not okay with me.

What do you suggest they do? Or is it just the political position that's the problem? The result is the same, pretty much every single AI company is abusing sourcehut.

They have to do something, because I pay for a service, and if I can't use it, I'm not paying in the future. If that means blocking the AI companies that's fine, they can contact me if they want to use my code, we'll figure something out.

I expect hosts to be neutral to the maximum possible extent.

For example I expect a host not to have an arbitrary beef with Bing or Kagi, or to refuse to allow connections from France. Blocking can of course be rarely necessary, but what I want from a host is a blocking policy as minimal and selective as possible.

Yes, I understand it's a lot of work and is quite inconvenient, but especially if I'm paying for a service, I'm interested in my interests, not in what's convenient for the host.

> but especially if I'm paying for a service

I don't believe you are paying for Sourcehut hosting, so why do you care?

For that matter, "This has been part of our terms of service since they were originally written in 2018" so even if you are paying for hosting, why did you start using their services in the first place?

I don't expect hosts to be neutral to the maximum possible extent. I exercise my freedom of association to select hosts which are more aligned to my beliefs.

My beliefs, for example, say that I shouldn't use services from companies which build tools to support an apartheid state (eg, https://www.theverge.com/news/643670/microsoft-employee-prot... ), nor from companies which host those projects.

Even if being neutral were more profitable for them and cheaper for me.

> I don't believe you are paying for Sourcehut hosting, so why do you care?

I theoretically could, and it's posted here I imagine to discuss the linked post. So I am.

> For that matter, "This has been part of our terms of service since they were originally written in 2018"

The "No AI" bit seems to show up only in late 2024. Which I'd regard as an extremely unwelcome development had I been paying.

> I don't expect hosts to be neutral to the maximum possible extent. I exercise my freedom of association to select hosts which are more aligned to my beliefs.

Likewise. In my case it's my belief is that when you pay somebody, it's to get things done your way. So for instance I'd be a lot more pleased with a setting.

Your own statement say that you would never - not even theoretically - pay for Sourcehut hosting.

The 2018 restriction on using "this data for recruiting, solicitation, or profit" would have been an offense to your belief that restrictions should be "as minimal and selective as possible."

> I expect hosts to be neutral to the maximum possible extent.

Why? Who gets to say what's acceptable?

This would be fine in an ideal world. However, the one we live in has crawlers that don't care how many resources they use. They're fine with taking the server down or bankrupting the owner as long as they get the data they want.

And I can understand the abuse argument, however they have a blanket exclusion for AI I do not agree with.

The code might not be theirs but the service hosting the code is and nothing is stopping you from hosting your code elsewhere. For some people blocking LLMs might be a reason to use sourcehut over github.

>We have an Apache licensed project. You absolutely can use it for anything you want, including AI analysis. I don't appreciate third parties deciding on their own what can be done with code that isn't theirs.

That's not what the Apache license says.

According to the Apache license, derivative work needs to provide attribution and a copyright notice, which no major LLMs do.

I pay for sourcehut hosting, and I have no problems at all with this decision.

Unlike you with your GitHub-based project, I avoid Microsoft like the plague. I do not want to be complicit in supporting their monopoly power, their human rights abuses, and their environmental destruction.

You won't get visibility from AI.

I'm curious what your project is. Blockchain?

VR platform. We're actually opposed to any blockchain tech as an organization. We're into it for the users.

But I see no reason to have any issues with LLMs. ChatGPT/copilot/etc helping new people getting started? That sounds absolutely great to me.

> Sorry, but I want all the visibility I can get.

I can understand that, but the various AI companies pounding sourcehut into the ground also results in zero visibility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com