6 ms·

No, the free software movement wants that the source code of the software you use be available to you to modify it if you wish. AI does not necessarily do that.

kstenerud 6mo ago
AI makes the entirety of the software engineering profession available to you. All you have to do is ask the right way, and you can build in days what once took months or years. Decompiling and re-engineering proprietary code has never been easier. You almost don't even need the source code anymore. The object code can be examined by your LLM, and binary patches applied. Closed source is no longer the moat it was, and so keeping the source code to yourself is only going to hurt you as people pass you over for companies who realize this, and strive to make it easier for your LLM to figure their systems out.
- kuschku 5mo ago
  > Decompiling and re-engineering proprietary code has never been easier. You almost don't even need the source code anymore. The object code can be examined by your LLM, and binary patches applied. We've always been able to do that, but that's not the point. There's a reason free software licenses require the "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" to be opened. One of the core tenets is that any user should have the exact same access as the original developers.
- Arkhaine_kupo 6mo ago
  > Decompiling and re-engineering proprietary code has never been easier. You almost don't even need the source code anymore. The object code can be examined by your LLM, and binary patches applied. Jesus christ. "The people who wanted everyone to have a home should be happy with the invention of the lockpick. You can just find a nice house and open the lock and move in. Ignore the lockpick company charging essentially whatver they want for lockpicks or how they got accesss to everyones keyfob, or the danger of someone breaking into your house" That is basically your argument. Like AI is a copyright theft machine, with companies owning the entire stack and being able to take away at will, and comitting crimes like decompiling source code instead of clean room is not a selling point either... The open source community wants people to upskill, people become tech literate, free solutions that grow organically out of people who care, features the community needs and wants and people having the freedom to modify that code to solve their own circumstances.
  - Supermancho 6mo ago
    > That is basically your argument. Like AI is a copyright theft machine, with companies owning the entire stack and being able to take away at will, and comitting crimes like decompiling source code instead of clean room is not a selling point either... Stop trying to make this into some abstract argument. It's not an argument anymore. It's already happened. How one might choose to characterize the reality, is irrelevant. A vast (and growing) amount of source code is more open, for better or worse. Granted, this is to the chagrin of subgroups that had been pushing different strategies.
    - simoncion 6mo ago
      > It's already happened. Agreed. > Stop trying to make this into some abstract argument. As you mentioned, it's not an abstract argument. It's statements of fact. > A vast (and growing) amount of source code is more open... No, not at all. 1) If you honestly believe that major tech companies will permit both copyright- and license-washing of their most important proprietary code simply because someone ran it through an LLM, you're quite the fool. If someone "trained" an LLM on -say- both Windows 11 and ReactOS, and then used that to produce "ReactDoze" while being honest about how it was produced, Microsoft would permanently nail them to the wall. 2) The LLMs that were trained on the entirety of The Internet are very, very much not open. If "Open"AI and Anthropic were making available the input data, the programs and procedures used to process that data, and all the other software, input data, and procedures required to reproduce their work, then one could reasonably entertain the claim that the system produced was open.
      - kstenerud 6mo ago
        This is looking at the current situation through the old lens. That ship has sailed. The revolution is happening. We live in a new reality now, one where we're still trying to figure out what rules should even be. And there will be winners and losers, and copyright and patent law will be modified in an attempt to tame the chaos, with mixed results because of all of the powerful players on both ends. You can live on the front of it for high risk/reward, or at the back for safety. But either way, you're going to exist in this new reality and you need to decide your risk appetite.
- mmustapic 6mo ago
  But I can't have the weights of the LLM model I'm using for this.
  - satvikpendem 6mo ago
    Open weight models exist.
- doctorwho42 6mo ago
  Reengineering from scratch is different than being able to form an existing software.

kstenerud 6mo ago

AI makes the entirety of the software engineering profession available to you. All you have to do is ask the right way, and you can build in days what once took months or years. Decompiling and re-engineering proprietary code has never been easier. You almost don't even need the source code anymore. The object code can be examined by your LLM, and binary patches applied. Closed source is no longer the moat it was, and so keeping the source code to yourself is only going to hurt you as people pass you over for companies who realize this, and strive to make it easier for your LLM to figure their systems out.

kuschku 5mo ago
> Decompiling and re-engineering proprietary code has never been easier. You almost don't even need the source code anymore. The object code can be examined by your LLM, and binary patches applied. We've always been able to do that, but that's not the point. There's a reason free software licenses require the "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" to be opened. One of the core tenets is that any user should have the exact same access as the original developers.
Arkhaine_kupo 6mo ago
> Decompiling and re-engineering proprietary code has never been easier. You almost don't even need the source code anymore. The object code can be examined by your LLM, and binary patches applied. Jesus christ. "The people who wanted everyone to have a home should be happy with the invention of the lockpick. You can just find a nice house and open the lock and move in. Ignore the lockpick company charging essentially whatver they want for lockpicks or how they got accesss to everyones keyfob, or the danger of someone breaking into your house" That is basically your argument. Like AI is a copyright theft machine, with companies owning the entire stack and being able to take away at will, and comitting crimes like decompiling source code instead of clean room is not a selling point either... The open source community wants people to upskill, people become tech literate, free solutions that grow organically out of people who care, features the community needs and wants and people having the freedom to modify that code to solve their own circumstances.
- Supermancho 6mo ago
  > That is basically your argument. Like AI is a copyright theft machine, with companies owning the entire stack and being able to take away at will, and comitting crimes like decompiling source code instead of clean room is not a selling point either... Stop trying to make this into some abstract argument. It's not an argument anymore. It's already happened. How one might choose to characterize the reality, is irrelevant. A vast (and growing) amount of source code is more open, for better or worse. Granted, this is to the chagrin of subgroups that had been pushing different strategies.
  - simoncion 6mo ago
    > It's already happened. Agreed. > Stop trying to make this into some abstract argument. As you mentioned, it's not an abstract argument. It's statements of fact. > A vast (and growing) amount of source code is more open... No, not at all. 1) If you honestly believe that major tech companies will permit both copyright- and license-washing of their most important proprietary code simply because someone ran it through an LLM, you're quite the fool. If someone "trained" an LLM on -say- both Windows 11 and ReactOS, and then used that to produce "ReactDoze" while being honest about how it was produced, Microsoft would permanently nail them to the wall. 2) The LLMs that were trained on the entirety of The Internet are very, very much not open. If "Open"AI and Anthropic were making available the input data, the programs and procedures used to process that data, and all the other software, input data, and procedures required to reproduce their work, then one could reasonably entertain the claim that the system produced was open.
    - kstenerud 6mo ago
      This is looking at the current situation through the old lens. That ship has sailed. The revolution is happening. We live in a new reality now, one where we're still trying to figure out what rules should even be. And there will be winners and losers, and copyright and patent law will be modified in an attempt to tame the chaos, with mixed results because of all of the powerful players on both ends. You can live on the front of it for high risk/reward, or at the back for safety. But either way, you're going to exist in this new reality and you need to decide your risk appetite.
mmustapic 6mo ago
But I can't have the weights of the LLM model I'm using for this.
- satvikpendem 6mo ago
  Open weight models exist.
doctorwho42 6mo ago
Reengineering from scratch is different than being able to form an existing software.