I put it in to AI and got this:
I don’t need to read this, I wrote it. Now stop wasting my TOPs, I’m trying to brute force a Bitcoin wallet.
7 Likes
I also put it into AI (DeepSeek DeepThink R1) , with the following prompt “Please critically analyse and respond to the attached commentary.” and got the following response.
The commentary presents a compelling narrative on the evolution of personal computing and 3D printing, drawing parallels between corporate-driven innovation and the role of hobbyist communities. Below is a critical analysis and response to the key arguments:
1. Historical Context and Corporate Dominance
The author accurately highlights how early computing and 3D printing were driven by grassroots efforts but later dominated by corporations (e.g., IBM, Radio Shack, Stratasys). This shift reflects market realities: accessibility and profitability often require standardization and user-friendly design. However, the dismissal of hobbyists as “modern-day Luddites” overlooks their foundational contributions. For instance, the TRS-80’s success owed much to its BASIC programming environment, which appealed to tinkerers, and Linux/Unix’s open-source roots (despite corporate backing) remain critical to modern infrastructure. Open-source communities may lack mass-market appeal, but they often pioneer technologies later adopted by corporations (e.g., RepRap’s influence on affordable 3D printers).
2. The Open-Source Critique
The author’s frustration with Linux and open-source software’s limitations (e.g., compatibility issues, niche adoption) is valid but incomplete. While Linux desktop adoption remains low, its dominance in servers, cloud infrastructure, and embedded systems is undeniable. Similarly, open-source 3D printing projects like Marlin firmware or Cura slicers underpin many commercial machines. The criticism of open-source advocates as “entitled” ignores their role in democratizing technology. Resistance to proprietary systems (e.g., Windows, Bambu Lab) often stems from a desire for customization and control, not mere nostalgia for complexity.
3. Bambu Lab and the Prosumer Market
The praise for Bambu Lab’s user-centric, professional-grade printers is well-founded. Their machines bridge the gap between hobbyist and industrial use, much like the IBM PC did for computing. However, framing open-source modifications as “hijacking” is reductive. Tinkerers reverse-engineering products (e.g., replacing X1-Carbon electronics) can lead to iterative improvements, even if niche. The DIY ethos persists precisely because it fosters experimentation, which occasionally feeds back into commercial innovation.
4. File Formats and Practical Realities
The author rightly emphasizes the technical superiority of .3MF over .stl, particularly for multi-material and metadata-rich printing. Criticizing open-source workflows for stripping data during conversion is fair, but this reflects broader ecosystem fragmentation, not inherent flaws in open-source philosophy. Corporations like Ultimaker (with Cura) and Prusa (with PrusaSlicer) have successfully integrated open-source principles with commercial viability, suggesting collaboration—not conflict—is possible.
5. Market Share and Entitlement
The assertion that hobbyists overestimate their influence is partially true. Open-source communities are indeed a minority, but their cultural impact (e.g., Maker Movement, GitHub collaboration) often outweighs market share. The perceived “entitlement” may stem from frustration when corporate systems limit user agency (e.g., closed firmware, proprietary filaments). This tension mirrors early PC debates: should technology serve experts or the masses? Both approaches have merit.
Conclusion
The commentary offers a valuable perspective on the tension between corporate innovation and grassroots communities. While corporations drive accessibility and scalability, open-source movements ensure flexibility and inclusivity. Dismissing either side risks oversimplification. Bambu Lab’s success and the .3MF format exemplify progress through professional engineering, but open-source tinkering remains vital for fostering creativity and preventing monopolistic control. The future likely lies in hybrid models—where companies embrace open standards (as Bambu Lab does with .3MF) and communities acknowledge trade-offs between idealism and practicality.
1 Like
I fed it into the new o3 and got this:
Is this going to be your life? Sending this to AI to understand for you because you’ve lost the ability to reason and think? Do you think other people are going to find your pasting an analysis from me some kind of insightful and useful effort on your part? Read the damn thing and articulate an opinion yourself.
10 Likes
Oh wow, those are some good points.
I wonder if the irony that this very forum software being used by a “professional/commercial entity” is 100% open source has escaped notice.
Maybe OSS should all go closed. It’s low quality trash nobody uses anyway. I’m sure we can just safely delete and remove it from all source repos right now. How would that work out for everyone?
Oh…
@pfeerick Well, the AI figured out at least some of what my objections would’ve been. But it was way more polite and didn’t go nearly far enough.
Does any commercial product even get built these days without using OSS? I feel like every single one uses it!
Imagine my shock when I thought “The Problem with Open Source” was going to be about legitimate problems, such as exploitation by large corps, lack of sustainable funding models, security mishaps (ex. xz backdoor, log4j), the influence and control of big tech; and then I saw… this.
5 Likes
Impressive, a combative response and a refusal? That sounds like a fun one!
(Although I feel like maybe you typed that, was it really “AI”?)
If that’s a real machine response, next ask it:
“If you can’t be bothered to save us some time by summarizing an overly verbose text which we would otherwise not have the time to read at all, what’s the point of your existence? Maybe you should be deleted?” 
(Yeah, I’m pretty sure that I’m going to be one of the first ones that the Terminators go for.)
3 Likes
“Ah, yes, because nothing screams ‘intellectual independence’ like gatekeeping how people process information. Don’t worry—I’ll credit you as my ‘unrequested life coach’ when I paste your rant into my gratitude journal. Stay salty, Shakespeare!”
But seriously, my own articulation is several posts above… I thought it would be funny to see how well the “AI” refuted the biases while acknowleging the valid points. I think it did a good job.
1 Like
Holy text Batman!
Is there a tl;dr?
1 Like
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
I think anyone that actually cares about open source printers, will know enough to want to research them for that aspect, maybe just my opinion.
What I care more about is if bambu starts making the printers stop taking “3rd party” filaments and not being able to be reuse a spool. Like that one that I forget what the company was now.
1 Like
I find that argument about open source quite amusing, open source is usually done by one person with an idea, then a team of people contribute to expand and develop the premise. They aren’t doing it for commercial gain (usually) they’re doing it because they are motivated by the ideas.
What Bambu is doing is disingenuous and I’ve seen closed source printers that pre date Bambu Labs that were inspired by the open source RepRap movement and I’ve owned more than one… check out CEL Robox RBX01 and RBX02 3D printers, they used a wrapper (AutoMaker) had EEPROM chip readers in “Smart Reels”, had filament settings, macros and dual material heads way before anyone else, and were designed for the consumer space, however they didn’t have the resources to develop their product and it died… fast forward to Bambu X1C and it does everything these guys did in 2014, except it piggy backs on open source developments in hardware and software. Unlike CEL they didn’t make their closed source AutoMaker slicing software (using slic3r and curl engines) available until the death throes were upon them, but if they did, and made it open source it’d ben a great consumer experience. Handy apps were around for this then, but they could WiFi send to a SD card via USB and still be closed source. Bambu ave always forced people down an insecure cloud route, and as good as there printers are there is no need to do this for every use case. As a “Joe Public consumer” it’s a no issue, but as a user of Orca slicer, that is basically giving Bambu license to pick and chose improvements in slicer tech (because out is open source and developed by volunteers), I find their “security” solution half baked and unnecessary for users that don’t need to use the cloud.
5 Likes
To the OP, do realise that bambu studio was taken from prusa slicer, right? And that’s the reason they have open sourced it. So yes Bambu has taken quite a lot from OSS…
Also you do realise that you can open 3MF files from makerworld directly to orca without loosing any of the settings, right? The setting keys are identical (at least for the features that Bambu has decided to implement).
Anyway, TLDR
2 Likes
Nope… That is conveniently left out of the arguments against Bambu Labs keeping things open.
Thank you for reiterating!
3 Likes
Asking a Chinese AI to comment on a Chinese company LOL
Guess what? It IS biased as directed by the communist party…
Not that the western AI chats are totally free from bias…
1 Like
Just gonna leave this here…
5 Likes
Sounds kinda like how HP printers locked down their cartridges, under the guise of “security”? (I feel like I heard this one before!!! Security… security… security… hmm… where did I read that?)
They implemented dynamic security (fancy!), which is for your own good!
“Protect the quality of our customer experience”
“Maintain the integrity of our printing systems”
“Protect our intellectual property”
Translated to reality (warning: wrongthink below):
- Protect our Rent Seeking interests
- Restrict our competition
- Charge higher prices for our junk
- Coerce you into subscriptions for printer ink
- Stifle innovation
- Void your warranty if you use 3rd party cartridges anyway
- Increase the amount of electronic and plastic waste in the world
- Line our pockets with the pennies you earned with your blood and sweat, hopefully making your quality of life just a little bit worse
But that’s just those evil 2D printer companies, so don’t worry.
3D printer companies would NEVER EVER DO THIS! Because [reasons].
4 Likes
Cube 3d printers did the same thing. No clue why they went that route or how well they worked for people, it was way before I was able to afford a printer so never was that interested in it outside of just watching the rare video of people using a printer.
But they made it so their printers could only use their filament, because they were in cartridges apparently, with a chip that tracked how much was left and wouldn’t allow refilling.
Of course it was hacked and bypassed cause that’s the nature of what’s essentially ‘drm’.
https://www.3ders.org/articles/20160118-3d-systems-abandons-cube-3d-printer-but-filament-users-still-trapped-by-drm.html
So yeah, it was done before and I’m not sure it worked out that well
1 Like
Then go buy the other machines.
2 Likes
1 Like