It won't happen, for two reasons. One is that great deal of open-source software and hobbyist knowledge sharing has never been driven by financial reward anyway and people will continue to do it anyway. Finer grained controls over opt-outs would be great (the equivalent of a search engine 'nofollow' would be great and will hopefully come with time).
Many kinds of technology faced this kind of tragedy of the commons argument in the past and it never bears out. Printing presses copied manuscripts, search engines copied and indexed web pages, open-source software was incorporated into commercial products, Wikipedia repackaged knowledge produced elsewhere.
In almost all cases the total amount of creation increases because the technology lowered costs, expanded audiences, or created new forms of value. The speed of creation of new 'View Source' outpaces the number of people pulling back.
> great deal of open-source software and hobbyist knowledge sharing has never been driven by financial reward anyway and people will continue to do it anyway.
A lot of open-source software was supported by developers having stable well-paying jobs that didn't burn them out and afforded them enough free time to work on passion projects on the side, so that even if their company wasn't directly supporting their OSS development, there was still an indirect link.
Not only is this likely to increasingly change in the future as people need to spend more time navigating the disruption AI will have on labor, it already visibly has been changing over the past year.
One of the top posts on HN today is someone leaving open source and tech completely to work at Home Depot -- while this is an extreme case it isn't wholly unique to what I'm seeing in many places since 2025.
It will happen and it already started to happen. It started to happen even before LLM, when google started to hide smaller personal blogs in its search result. Expectation of the monetary reward has nothing to do with it, discoverability does. Culture of creating content does not exist when people cant see what others created and know no one will see what they created. A lot of smaller open source was monkey see monkey do thing - we have seen other open source projects and wanted something like that. Likewise with tutorials, we have seen other people write cool tutorials and felt like creating own and showing it out.
That is not the dynamic with LLM. You see LLM output, but original creator is hidden. And if you write your own, no one will find it. Worst, other people will tell you "LLM could have write it" in reaction ... so people wont bother.
> search engines copied and indexed web pages
Notably, search engines sent people toward web pages. And when search engines stopped doing that and started to copy content, those original pages started to die out.
> Printing presses copied manuscripts
Printing press made dissemination easier. It is an equivalent of early internet, not of LLM.
> open-source software was incorporated into commercial products
Commercial product using open source library had different user then the library it is using. And crucially, it is not hiding that library from the library user.
> Wikipedia repackaged knowledge produced elsewhere
Yes, and we collectively create less encyclopedias. They are not worth writing and checking for correctness anymore, so we don't do that all that much anymore.
The centralized choke point of web search is getting relaxed now. Unlike search engines and social networks, you can download a LLM and run it. A small one, but capable of using a library of search stubs to directly fetch information from hubs, feeds and other search engines. You can own the agent who can solve the web search part for you.
Imagine you have a 4B model and keep an equal size corpus of search stubs, small MD documents linking to hubs, feeds and search engines for millions of topics. You can use the LLM to read the stub and perform the search for you, all orchestrated locally, with greater privacy and independence. You can dis-intermediate the search chokepoint now. You can set the criteria for what to include, exclude, how to rank and present the results.
This works because good entry points for any topic change slowly over time. The construction of search stubs is trivial with existing AI agents, and can be shared as open source. A few GB for the model, a few for the search routing layer, and you got a sovereign local agent.
If this holds, access control shifts from whatever Google thinks maximizes profit to whatever the community thinks has value.
I'm personally was fine with contributing to open-source without any financial reward. But I'm reluctant to release anything in public now because it will be eventually incorporated into the training set for the technology which will (or at least can) lave me without a job and chances to find one.
> In almost all cases the total amount of creation increases because the technology lowered costs
But this doesn't lower the cost of learning and writing CSS, it just scoops up some of it and offers that cheaply, and even that only because it's offered below cost. If anything I'd say it increases the cost, because now you don't get paid to get and be good at what an LLM is supposedly good enough at, and have less free time to do it anyway. You may not even have a computer because your current one broke and you can't afford a new one.
> [a] great deal of open-source software and hobbyist knowledge sharing has never been driven by financial reward
It seems like a lot of the underlying sentiment which was driving that was to contribute to the world and make things better for our fellow people.
Working on OSS software sure doesn't feel as rewarding in the last few years, so I've personally stepped back from 99% of what I do. As have more public people that have worked on OSS for a long time.
Well that historical content and code still exists right? Are you just saying “what if we’re in a world of walled gardens now that OSS dies because people don’t want their work stolen” in which case: these companies will get data and they don’t need OSS anymore. It’s already webcrawled or licensed or commissioned, they pay people to generate novel traces when they need it or at the very least sets of prompts and tests for verification. Then synthetic data gets added to the training set, the ones that are verified.
Do you think creating the orders of magnitude of content the internet produced organically and which LLM creators are stealing is cheap? If they actually have to pay for content creation while competing with content creators on the you know, content creation front via LLM-generation, the entire business model of LLMs collapses.
You can't have the mountains of data needed for LLMs in the decades to come, if your LLMs put the writers and artists out of work.
It’s literally how these models are trained today. They of course use open source data but that’s no longer the most important source, it’s high quality prompts and verifiable tests and a lot of inference compute. They also have massive flywheels from users from which they can mine good data or at the very least again good prompts which can be just as important.
And everything we know about these companies points to unsustainability, before we even get to very high impact content lawsuits which haven't even been settled. Let alone lots of data sets being pulled out of public view and being moved to anti LLM licenses (with explicit licensing for training).
We will see how this shakes out in the coming years, as Anthropic, OpenAI & co file for IPO or run out of private funding. Grok is already on the ropes as seen from the SpaceX IPO.
You think this train is going to stop because of a lawsuit? And again, if all data was officially off limits for these companies, it wouldn't matter. They have code traces from their users which is arguably much better, they can license code (you'd be surprised to know that these companies are not just stealing everyones data they are paying for it), and they can create data via paying people to do it.
And yes, we will see how it shakes out, Anthropic or OpenAI may collapse just as netscape did, but I hope your implication is not "AI in general will be extinguished like the blockchain" or something
I've read probably hundreds of historical books at this point and the only thing most historians agree on is:
Nothing was set in stone. The way many historical things happened the way they did was due to accident, sheer chance.
> And yes, we will see how it shakes out, Anthropic or OpenAI may collapse just as netscape did, but I hope your implication is not "AI in general will be extinguished like the blockchain" or something
I think the current LLM economy will collapse, leaving behind a few survivors. There will be widespread adoption of cheap OSS LLMs and of more limited, economically viable functionality provided by people with deep pockets like Google. As LLM economics start making more sense, LLMs will be everywhere, once the hardware becomes cheaper and more available.
Regarding lawsuits, do you think Disney & co will take this lying down? The freaking DMCA - an American law - is enforced <<internationally>>. It will take a long time but LLMs will be domesticated.
That sounds like it would reduce the blazing progress of the last decades to a snail's pace, some twilight where software is just average, as it always was and always will be. That people will always do the thing the opposite of which is now incentivized doesn't convince me, basically. If just using the LLM gets you ahead in a time of severe pressure, then most people will do that, and by the time anyone realizes they kinda need a FEW people to actually be able to reason about something from start to finish, it might be to late.
We're not such a smart species. It's not like we managed so far. We're just adding unsolved problems, and distract ourselves with even bigger problems. The world could have been fed and clothed by the mid 20th century and we could have solved climate change by the 1980s (talking out of my ass here but with confidence in my general point with that), but instead we now throw everything into the furnace. in the hopes it will create a deus ex machina, like in that very bad Isaac Asimov story. I think we are absolutely capable of lobotomizing ourselves (as a species) like a toddler playing with an electrical socket shocking itself. I don't say this to be snarky, I honestly think we're that unserious and ignorant about what we do and the environment we do it in.
But I also really should look into what you answered about LLM learning from themselves, I heard it mentioned before but I still have no real clue. I will try to rectify that. I mean, I really, really want to be wrong on this, only a monster wouldn't.
> by the time anyone realizes they kinda need a FEW people to actually be able to reason about something from start to finish, it might be to late.
I dont think it will be "too late" by any reasonable definition. All those things are learnable and companies that will really need to overcome it, will. But, they wont be open with their knowledge. Learning/training will be expensive and once people acquire it, they wont share it like open sources and programming tech blogs did.
Many kinds of technology faced this kind of tragedy of the commons argument in the past and it never bears out. Printing presses copied manuscripts, search engines copied and indexed web pages, open-source software was incorporated into commercial products, Wikipedia repackaged knowledge produced elsewhere.
In almost all cases the total amount of creation increases because the technology lowered costs, expanded audiences, or created new forms of value. The speed of creation of new 'View Source' outpaces the number of people pulling back.