It doesn't matter what Tailwind your opinion is. It matters that they built something which definitely has market validation that people were willing to pay for. AI took their lunch AND their lunch money.
I'm not going to dogpile criticism on Tailwind or Adam, whose behavior seems quite admirable, but I fundamentally agree with the thrust of the parent comment. It's unfortunate for Tailwind and anyone who was invested in the project's pre-2022 trajectory, but no one is entitled to commercial engagement by unaffiliated third parties.
Here's a similar example from my own experience:
* Last week, I used Grok and Gemini to help me prepare a set of board/committee resolutions and legal agreements that would have easily cost $5k+ in legal fees pre-2022.
* A few days ago, I started a personal blog and created a privacy policy and ToS that I might otherwise have paid lawyers money to draft (linked in my profile for the curious). Or more realistically, I'd have cut those particular corners and accepted the costs of slightly higher legal risk and reduced transparency.
* In total, I've saved into the five figures on legal over the past few years by preparing docs myself and getting only a final sign-off from counsel as needed.
One perspective would be that AI is stealing money from lawyers. My perspective is that it's saving me time, money, and risk, and therefore allowing me to allocate my scarce resources far more efficiently.
Automation inherently takes work away from humans. That's the purpose of automation. It doesn't mean automation is bad; it means we have a new opportunity to apply our collective talents toward increasingly valuable endeavors. If the market ultimately decides that it doesn't have sufficient need for continued Tailwind maintenance to fund it, all that means is that humanity believes Adam and co. will provide more value by letting it go and spending their time differently.
Laws are not intellectual property of individuals or companies, they belong to the public. That's a fundamentally different type of content to "learn" from. I totally agree that AI can save a lot of time, but I don't agree that the creators of Tailwind don't see any form of compensation.
It does not feel not right to me that revenue is being taken from Tailwind and redirected to Google, OpenAI, Meta and Anthropic without 0 compensation.
I'm not sure how this should codified in law or what the correct words are to describe it properly yet.
I see what you're getting at, but CSS is as much an open standard as the law. Public legal docs written against legal standards aren't fundamentally dissimilar to open source libraries written against technical standards.
While I am all for working out some sort of compensation scheme for the providers of model training data (even if indirect via techniques like distillation), that's a separate issue from whether or not AI's disruption of demand for certain products and services is per se harmful.
If that is the case, it's a very different claim than that AI is plagiarizing Tailwind (which was somewhat of a reach, given the permissiveness of the project's MIT license). Achieving such mass adoption would typically be considered the best case scenario for an open source project, not harm inflicted upon the project by its users or the tools that promoted it.
The problem Tailwind is running into isn't that anything has been stolen from them, as far as I can tell. It's that the market value of certain categories of expertise is dropping due to dramatically scaled up supply — which is basically good in principle, but can have all sorts of positive and negative consequences at the individual level. It's as if we suddenly had a huge glut of low-cost housing: clearly a social good on balance, but as with any market disruption there would be winners and losers.
If Tailwind's primary business is no longer as competitive as it once was, they may need to adapt or pivot. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're a victim of wrongdoing, or that they themselves did anything wrong. GenAI was simply a black swan event. As a certain captain once said, "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.".
