问HN：为什么在开源软件中，知识劳动的$0劫持现象如此普遍？
我注意到这个社区中存在一个有趣的悖论。我们庆祝“颠覆”和“创新”，但同时又维持着一种文化教条，认为个人的心血应该以零成本奉献出来。“开源”已经成为一种对独立发明合法掠夺的礼貌委婉说法。我们期望创作者牺牲数年的生命精力，结果却是大科技公司像剥矿一样提取逻辑并对衍生品申请专利——实际上禁止原作者使用自己的作品。
我对这里的集体伦理感到好奇：
1. 认知税：如果一个人需要一个大型语言模型的摘要来“验证”一个非扰动逻辑，那么这个人真的算作“贡献者”吗，还是他们只是他人认知牺牲的最终用户？
2. “黑客”精神：自什么时候起，黑客精神——从基本原理理解事物——被“我想免费得到这个，我现在就想要”的精神所取代？
我对那种慈善模式不感兴趣，在这种模式下，最响亮的影响者可以在一夜之间将我的多年工作据为己有。我更希望进行建设性的对话，探讨我们为何将这种寄生价值转移视为常态。
这个“社区”是建立在共同成长的基础上，还是仅仅建立在对没有法律部门的外来者的高效消费之上？我同意，确实有些人受益于这个世界的改善。但我想问的是创作者。还是说你们的“建设性”世界观需要作者破产作为进步的前提？
查看原文
I’ve noticed a fascinating paradox in this community. We celebrate "disruption" and "innovation," yet we maintain a cultural dogma where individual's lifework is expected to be donated for $0.
"Open Source" has become a polite euphemism for the legalized looting of independent inventions. We expect creators to sacrifice years of life-force, only for Big Tech to strip-mine the logic and patent the derivatives—effectively banning the original author from their own work.
I’m curious about the collective ethics here:
1. The Cognitive Tax: If one requires an LLM summary to "verify" a non-perturbative logic, does that person truly qualify as a "contributor," or are they just an end-user of someone else’s cognitive sacrifice?
2. The "Hacker" Spirit: Since when did the spirit of hacking—understanding things from first principles—get replaced by the spirit of "I want this for free and I want it now"?
I’m not interested in a charity model where the loudest influencer claims my years of work as their own overnight. I'd rather have a constructive dialogue on why we've normalized this parasitic transfer of value.
Is the "community" built on shared growth, or just on the efficient consumption of outliers who don't have a legal department?<p>I agree, the world has indeed improved for those who consume. But I'm asking about the creators. Or does your 'constructive' worldview require the author's bankruptcy as a prerequisite for progress?