> I don't understand why they would want to remove their code instead of wanting it to live on and further help more people through AI.
They do explain that in the post: because of the missing reciprocity. They didn't do it so OpenAI could profit off other's work, but to build a community with others. It's a pretty common motivator for humans.
How does removing their code help anyone? It barely makes the tineist bit of difference to Open AI, if any that's detectable. They aren't the only one's helping with that kind of code. "But it's the principle of the thing." Ok, well if it makes you feel good but that kind of self-centeredness belies your stated desire to help people.
edit: I think what bothers me is it seems like a Luddite reaction of someone who resents progress they don't approve of and want no part of it
I want to say that there’s a missing component that a lot of people miss when it comes to protest. Visibility means nothing if target doesn’t care. The goal of protest isn’t visibility , it’s to convince a target into doing what you want, where visibility is used as a tool to embarrass the target into submission. If the target has no shame, then you can protest all you want, they won’t care.
In the 1960s If the US wasn’t in a cold war and didn’t care that they were perceived as racists , The Civil Rights Movement would probably have to moved towards the Malcom X direction than Kings.
If it's a public good, then it's a public good. So whoever wants to use it according to the license it's fine.
If something is produced where the author is upset afterwards when this good is not used in the way he/she intended to, than it's the problem of the author in the first place to have choosen the wrong license.
They do explain that in the post: because of the missing reciprocity. They didn't do it so OpenAI could profit off other's work, but to build a community with others. It's a pretty common motivator for humans.