← Back to context

Comment by conartist6

2 days ago

The people who steal with AI and give no credit to the actual creative forces (that they are stamping out) are the fucking rude ones.

I just return to them the kindness they show me when they say, "You made this?? I made this!!"

I understand your anger too. AI did steal open source knowledge, and I agree with that part.

But separately from that, I think it's a bit unfair to talk about the people associated with it in such a dismissive way.

In reality, humans aren't purely rational beings, and I can understand why the Zig philosophy and the Bun manager who joined the AI side might not have looked good from that perspective. But I think that's a separate issue from the emotions involved.

  • > AI did steal open source knowledge

    It's really sad to see my fellow FOSS enthusiasts adopt this very strange vocabulary from the anti-pirate people. No, no one has stolen anything, the knowledge is still out there. No, you cannot even "shameless copy" from something that is asking the world to copy from it. Literally the point for me and others is that what we put out can be used by anyone for anything, that's why we use FOSS licenses in the first place.

    • you cannot even "shameless copy" from something that is asking the world to copy from it

      yes you can if you do not honor the license that the original was released under.

      that's why we use FOSS licenses in the first place

      some FOSS licenses are intended to insure that the code remains open even after modification. that's used by anyone for anything under the same license.

      1 reply →

  • It's not just in the past, and my anger isn't just about what was taken, but the community-destroying use it is being put to: Andrew's job isn't to make a JS runtime, it's to sell the idea that coding is dead.

    When he made it his job to sell that narrative, he declared war on me. It should not surprise him or anyone else that I am going to take the war right back to his doorstep.

    • There are some points I understand rationally but find hard to agree with emotionally.

      What I understand rationally is the claim that AI is destroying your garden and community. It's an undeniable fact that intellectual property and the associated disruption are happening. That's simply true.

      But what I find hard to agree with emotionally is that personal attacks aren't always justified just because of that. I've also been affected by AI. I had to create a new homepage because the traffic to my technical blog dropped due to AI. Of course, there are also benefits. As a non-native English speaker, it opened up a new path for me to access good programming resources, which I couldn't easily get before. So I have both affection and resentment.

      Still, I understand your feelings. Because for you, the emotional anger of having something you built destroyed without any compensation is real. Our situations are different.

      That said, I don't think that necessarily justifies attacking individuals.

      People often think of blogs and homepages as places to write 'personal stories.' But once they're made public, they carry responsibility. And Andrew Kelly is a public figure—his words spread easily. So there needs to be a certain level of responsibility when writing.

      In any case, I respect your perspective

      2 replies →

    • > Andrew's job isn't to make a JS runtime

      Most likely too late for edit, but Jarred is who work for Anthropic, not Andrew.