Ask HN: Should open source allow AI training?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.org&#x2F;osd&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opensource.org&#x2F;osd&#x2F;</a><p><pre><code> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. ... 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. </code></pre> I&#x27;m not sure how one can claim to be open source and <i>not</i> allow for it to be used for AI training.<p>There are certainly license &#x2F; fair use &#x2F; derived work issues to be resolved... but the &quot;allow AI training&quot; probably should be a &quot;yes&quot; for open source software.

I understand the concern and think it can even be broadened. Generative AI also threatens the pay and livelihood of graphic designers, artists, journalists, copywriters -- people who tend to be far more poorly paid than tech workers already. This application of generative AI to code-writing is really just automation coming home to roost. The question is, why should software engineers represent some special protected class from the dangers of automation?<p>I guess my point is there has to be some consistent standard here. Software engineers have no greater claim to their public-facing work than writers and artists, and are paid far more. If there&#x27;s an argument to exclude open-source code from training sets there should also be an argument to exclude essays and journalism, digital drawings, and music from such training sets.