Well, if Carmack wants to give gifts to AI companies then he's free to do it, but it doesn't mean that other people want it too.
I think this debate is mainly about the value of human labor. I guess when you're a millionaire, it's much easier to be excited about human labor losing value.
>So many projects now walk on eggshells so as not to disrupt sponsor flow or employment prospects.
In my experience, open-source maintainers tend to be very agreeable, conflict-avoidant people. It has nothing to do with corporate interests. Well, not all of them, of course, we all know some very notable exceptions.
Unfortunately, some people see this welcoming attitude as an invite to be abusive.
To understand why it's happening, just read the downvoted comments siding with the slanderer, here and in the previous thread.
Some people feel they're entitled to being open-source contributors, entitled to maintainers' time. They don't understand why the maintainers aren't bending over backwards to accomodate them. They feel they're being unfairly gatekept out of open-source for no reason.
This sentiment existed before AI and it wasn't uncommon even here on Hacker News. Now these people have a tool that allows them to put in even less effort to cause even more headache for the maintainters.
As far as I know, there's still no real RISC-V equivalent to Raspberry Pi, and I think that's what early adopters want the most.
The closest thing is probably Orange Pi RV2, but it has an outdated SoC with no RVA23 support, meaning some Linux distros won't even run on it. Its performance is also much poorer than of the RPi5.
I find it worrying that this was upvoted so much so quickly, and HN users are apparently unable to spot the glaring red flags about this article.
1. Let's start with where the post was published. Check what kind of content this blog publishes - huge volumes of random low-effort AI-boosting posts with AI-generated images. This isn't a blog about history or linguistics.
2. The author is anonymous.
3. The contents of the post itself: it's just raw AI output. There's no expert commentary. It just mentions that unnamed experts were unable to do the job.
This isn't to say that LLMs aren't useful for science; on the contrary. See for example Terence Tao's blog. Notice how different his work is from whatever this post is.
Right, the website lists the accusations with links, but the links seem unrelated to the accusations.
For example, I'd expect "criticizing expert medical and scientific consensus on healthcare for our minors" to link to some kind of article describing what Jesse Singal said about this topic and why it's incorrect, but instead it links to a general page about "healthcare providers serving gender diverse youth" that doesn't even mention anything about the accused person or their writings.
But to my eyes, this PR does look like spam. It has no description, its title and commit messages are meaningless. Changing random auxiliary files is also a common sign of PR spam. This PR really looks no different from other spam PRs that popular GH repos have to deal with all the time.
This is not the right way to contribute to a project. If I were the maintainer, I wouldn't engage with it either, just like I don't reply to spam emails.
Also, they talk about "echo chambers" and "full spectrum of global perspectives". Representing all perspectives sounds great in theory, but how far should it go?
Should all politicians' remarks be reproduced verbatim with absolutely no commentary, no fact-checking and no context? Should an article about an airplane crossing the Pacific include "some experts believe that this is impossible because Earth is flat?"
Excessive bias in media is definitely a problem, but I don't think that completely unbiased media can exist while still being useful. In my expierence, people looking for it either haven't thought about it deeply enough, or they just want information that doesn't make their side look bad.
I think this is the wrong direction. We need better journalism, not better summarizing aggregators.
Summaries are no substitute for real articles, even if they're generated by hand (and these apparently are not). Summaries are bound to strip the information of context, important details and analysis. There's also no accountability for the contents.
Sure, there are links to the actual articles, but let's not kid ourselves that most people are going to read them. Why would they need a summarizing service otherwise? Especially if there are 20 sources of varying quality.
There are no "lifehacks" to getting informed. I'll be harsh: this service strikes me as informationally illiterate person's idea of what getting informed is like.