5 ms·

Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. I spend most of my time now building my own little software ark, and I aspire to

by malwrar 4mo ago

Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. I spend most of my time now building my own little software ark, and I aspire to no longer think of programming in the next few years. I feel like the creative economy in general will be unrecognizable in the near future, maybe nonexistent. I wonder what modes of collaboration on ideas might form in the next few years.

irdc 4mo ago
Here is what the purveyors of AI don't seem to realise. You can bend copyright law all you want in order to train your models on whatever you can grab, but in the absence of genuine protection of their creative work authors are simply not going to be publishing at all.
- dzhiurgis 4mo ago
  Great. More work for AI then.
- egypturnash 4mo ago
  People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. And fighting to be noticed in an unending torrent of slop.
  - irdc 4mo ago
    Without any material or immaterial benefits? And with one's work being ground up and turned into weights for the next version of the machine that's threatening one's employment?
    - egypturnash 4mo ago
      I personally am sharing stuff because I want people to read my comics, and maybe join my crowdfunding campaigns. If I could put everyone pushing all this AI crap into a meat grinder, I would.
  - lelanthran 4mo ago
    > People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. Those people who do that are too few and far between to make a difference. The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license. That license is how they specify what they want in return.
    - dragonwriter 4mo ago
      > The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license. 100% of open source devs aren’t giving away the source without a license, since a licence—the grant of permissions for what is otherwise exclusive to author under the law—is what makes something open source. > That license is how they specify what they want in return. No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator.
      - lelanthran 4mo ago
        > No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator. Wrong. What they want in return is either credit or derivatives of the software. It's disingenuous to suggest that all these authors specifying, in a legal document, the exact mechanism by which to pay them back don't know what they are asking. If you're not happy with that trade, then don't make it.
- buran77 4mo ago
  I think they see it all too well. They still think they can make bank today while it lasts, whatever comes after is some other shareholder's problem. And if we're talking about open source, killing it might be a positive side effect, they'll be ready to sell you a closed source alternative when you no longer have options.
  - lesostep 4mo ago
    Furthermore, if people not only stop publishing, but also take down already published works, it will create a moat around already existing Language Models And the more they DDOS small websites — instead of respectfully scraping once — the more realistic my conspiracy theory looks.
  - irdc 4mo ago
    I don't think we're going back to closed source. I think we're going back to guilds. Aka. closed knowledge.
kator 4mo ago
The sad thing is I feel trapped on all sides of the debate, I wrote a book about LLMs and human creativity (spoiler Humans win for a long time) but I was going to do it as a blog series, instead I published https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXCSY4W8 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXCSY4W8 because I felt at least I might get a bit back for literally 100’s of hours of my life I poured into the book and my editor and friends who read and provided reviews. And I push a lot of open source code including a ton for the SWGEmu project, but now I’m of mixed mind to stop pushing anything public. I can’t decide, am I talking out of both sides of my mouth, it’s a confusing time to navigate for sure.
- malwrar 4mo ago
  Indeed sad, congrats on publishing your book though. I’ve certainly felt a bit of that same angst myself. I think SWGEmu (cool project, just learned of it from you!) do represent some optimism though. Maybe these sorts of passion projects will take over the space?
lelanthran 4mo ago
> Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. Me too; not that I've published a lot, but definitely more than most. That won't be happening anymore.

by malwrar 4mo ago

irdc 4mo ago

Here is what the purveyors of AI don't seem to realise. You can bend copyright law all you want in order to train your models on whatever you can grab, but in the absence of genuine protection of their creative work authors are simply not going to be publishing at all.

dzhiurgis 4mo ago
Great. More work for AI then.
egypturnash 4mo ago
People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. And fighting to be noticed in an unending torrent of slop.
- irdc 4mo ago
  Without any material or immaterial benefits? And with one's work being ground up and turned into weights for the next version of the machine that's threatening one's employment?
  - egypturnash 4mo ago
    I personally am sharing stuff because I want people to read my comics, and maybe join my crowdfunding campaigns. If I could put everyone pushing all this AI crap into a meat grinder, I would.
- lelanthran 4mo ago
  > People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. Those people who do that are too few and far between to make a difference. The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license. That license is how they specify what they want in return.
  - dragonwriter 4mo ago
    > The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license. 100% of open source devs aren’t giving away the source without a license, since a licence—the grant of permissions for what is otherwise exclusive to author under the law—is what makes something open source. > That license is how they specify what they want in return. No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator.
    - lelanthran 4mo ago
      > No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator. Wrong. What they want in return is either credit or derivatives of the software. It's disingenuous to suggest that all these authors specifying, in a legal document, the exact mechanism by which to pay them back don't know what they are asking. If you're not happy with that trade, then don't make it.
buran77 4mo ago
I think they see it all too well. They still think they can make bank today while it lasts, whatever comes after is some other shareholder's problem. And if we're talking about open source, killing it might be a positive side effect, they'll be ready to sell you a closed source alternative when you no longer have options.
- lesostep 4mo ago
  Furthermore, if people not only stop publishing, but also take down already published works, it will create a moat around already existing Language Models And the more they DDOS small websites — instead of respectfully scraping once — the more realistic my conspiracy theory looks.
- irdc 4mo ago
  I don't think we're going back to closed source. I think we're going back to guilds. Aka. closed knowledge.

kator 4mo ago

The sad thing is I feel trapped on all sides of the debate, I wrote a book about LLMs and human creativity (spoiler Humans win for a long time) but I was going to do it as a blog series, instead I published https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXCSY4W8 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXCSY4W8 because I felt at least I might get a bit back for literally 100’s of hours of my life I poured into the book and my editor and friends who read and provided reviews. And I push a lot of open source code including a ton for the SWGEmu project, but now I’m of mixed mind to stop pushing anything public. I can’t decide, am I talking out of both sides of my mouth, it’s a confusing time to navigate for sure.

malwrar 4mo ago
Indeed sad, congrats on publishing your book though. I’ve certainly felt a bit of that same angst myself. I think SWGEmu (cool project, just learned of it from you!) do represent some optimism though. Maybe these sorts of passion projects will take over the space?

lelanthran 4mo ago

> Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. Me too; not that I've published a lot, but definitely more than most. That won't be happening anymore.