[piokoch]

Monetization is coming. They'll tell companies, AI is replacing your workers, so it is still worth to pay 100K/year for the license, as those AI are not going to jump to other job, get sick, be late, complain, require free coffee and so on.

Soon the times of AI for $20/$200 a month will be long gone.

[tarkin2]

Get people hooked, tell them spending time coding is no longer needed, let their skills deteriorate, tell them they need cough up for a licence to do their job

Forcing developers to pay for models that were build on code they scraped scott-free

A tax to do their job that developers are jumping at the chance to pay

Everybody's finally realising that node dependencies are a threat, but letting these AI companies gatekeep the industry is a bandwagon people are scrambling towards

[witx]

> Forcing developers to pay for models that were build on code they scraped scott-free.

Yes this makes me sad behound explanation. Specially when I see open source developers happily using these tools. These companies stole your, free, hard work and charge you a subscription!! Not to speak about them torrenting books and (most likely) training on private repos.

This and devs paying a subscription to use a tool that is marketed as trying to replace them.

I had 150$ monthly budget thatbI used for various open source projects and I've cut that entirelly.

[simonw]

> These companies stole your, free, hard work and charge you a subscription!!

In case you weren't aware, Anthropic, OpenAI and GitHub Copilot all have programs that provide access to open source maintainers for free:

GitHub: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/how-tos/copilot-on-github...

Anthropic: https://claude.com/contact-sales/claude-for-oss

OpenAI: https://developers.openai.com/community/codex-for-oss

[andriy_koval]

Was there comprehensive survey amongst maintainers that its fair price for decades of hard work?

[majora2007]

I don't get what you're saying. You're frustrated that Open Source projects were used to build these AIs and that OS devs (or devs in general) are paying to use AI.

Then you say you had money that you used to donate(?) to OS and have cut that because of the frustration?

Open source just means sharing the source code for people to learn off or have the ability to customize on their own. I don't think there is any need to be frustrated about that (now if it was copyright/private of course).

[witx]

> Open source just means sharing the source code for people to learn off or have the ability to customize on their own.

Yes people, not corporations. The point is there a licenses to be respected that weren't.

[lkjdsklf]

Model training pretty clearly falls under fair use.

We could fix that, but it requires a political will to change the law.

[witx]

If you look carefully model training is a very good relicensing exercise of your code

[bingaweek]

This has not been determined in courts and your willingness to speak so confidently about it speaks volumes.

[paganel]

> Forcing developers to pay for models that were build on code they scraped scott-free

That's also caused by some very smart (even brilliant) developers (you can see many of them in this very thread) choosing to be oblivious about all this and bury us all under, hoping that they'll be among the last ones to go. Writing this down I realise that they maybe aren't all that smart.

[thewebguyd]

I've been saying this since the beginning, the rug pull is coming. If these models can eventually replace a human worker, there is no reason these companies won't charge (and get away with it) very close to a typical SWE salary.

It would not surprise me one bit to see anywhere from $80k-$100k/seat pricing.

[andriy_koval]

Unless there is competition (e.g. Chinese models, taking you 80% there, but costing 20x less)

[larodi]

As someone noted here recently - use the frontier models as much as u can, while you can.

[dualvariable]

AI for $20/month won't ever go away, but it won't be the absolute latest and greatest frontier model.

Most of us don't need a model that can prove the Riemann hypothesis or Goldbach's conjecture in order to get work done.

[miroljub]

Thankfully, we have Chinese models we can use for a fraction of the price.

Not everyone needs a Ferrari to go for a weekly shopping.

[baq]

A Ferrari will likely lap you when you’re racing, though, and the market and the economy is a race. You’ll be facing a question soon, or your employer will, whether to spend a significant chunk of free cash on fable-class tokens or on literally anything else instead - wages and salaries included.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

<< You’ll be facing a question soon, or your employer will

Maybe? If you talk to executives, the impression that I am getting is that they tend to be somewhat misinformed at best, which, yes, is bound to result in some really bad decisions down the road. But, and it is not a small but, the ones I did talk to ( and, amusingly, those are the ones with strong opinions ) don't seem to have a lot, um, practical exposure to this tech beyond what they heard at the watercooler. Honestly, it is kinda infuriating. And all this before we get to how companies want to say they use AI, but also keep cost down.

[miroljub]

Yeah, sure. In the same way I can see only Ferraris driving as taxis, company cars, transport vehicles, used by post, delivery services ...

You and your work are not that special, you are not participating in car races, and you don't need a Ferrari.