You have it backwards. I'm paying $200/month and so I want the thing to reflect more what I want than what the general public wants. They'd better be mining my data, despite that being a term I haven't heard in over a decade.

Some people were upset that Google Maps would just take the data that contributors give it for free. My problem was different. I use Google Maps and I want a way to correct it. I don't want to be paid for this. I want the tool I'm using to be correctable by me. The more I pay for it, the more I want it to be editable by me. I don't want compensation. I want it to be better. And I can make it better.

It's sort of why we picked Kong at a different company. Open source core meant that we could edit stuff we didn't like. In fact, considering that we paid, we wanted them to upstream what we changed.

Yes, I share your take on this change—a way to improvements in many domains.

Agree that the fact that these improvements will accrue within in a proprietary for profit. But still a net positive fir my work.

Give me a FOSS LLM with Claude 4 Sonnet performance and a 1 million token context and I will work even harder toward improvements in my areas of biological NIH-funded research.