Hacker News Reader

Comment by prism56 | Hacker News Reader

If the data is opensource on github, then in my opinion it should be fair game.

IMO this is unfair for GPL or similarly licensed code.

Seems ok for MIT like licensed code though

It's totally fair to use GPL code, it just means all the models built by Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. using GPL-licensed source are themselves bound by the GPL. Plus, any works created downstream using those AI tools.

We're on the verge of a golden age of software as soon as someone finds a court with courage.

Ah, you have much more faith in the legal system than I do. It's nice to dream, though.

I think AI will create an open source dark age. Gradually, we'll see a lot less new good open source code. A gradual shift back to the proprietary world. Simmilar to the 1950-1990 period.

Why would giving more people software freedom and the ability to reverse engineer nonfree code result in a dark age?

There's no difference. Either you need to follow the license or you don't. MIT has requirements still.

The data is not open source. They have open weights but the source data is never open.

Things being public should not be enough. just because someone leaked your medical information to the public via a data breach should not make it fair game. There should be some rules.

I feel that's a flase dichotomy. The code visible on github is freely available for anyone to read and learn from.

So would be your leaked medical record.

The point is not that this situation seems absurd. The point is that we need some point where we say whats ok or not.

And by ignoring licensing of public code already we moved it closer to the worse end of the spectrum

I feel that's a false dichotomy. The code on github is freely available for people to read and learn from, leaked medical data isn't.

There are rules. I believe that search engine indexing follows these rules and that so called "training" is search engine indexing.

But a court may differ in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com