I personally see no issue with training and running open local models by individuals. When corporations run scrapers and expropriate IP at an industrial scale, then charge for using them, it is different.

▲

soulofmischief 3 days ago | parent [-]

What about Meta and the commercially licensed family of Llama open-weight models?

▲

strogonoff 3 days ago | parent [-]

I have not researched closely enough but I think it falls under what corporations do. They are commercially licensed, you cannot use them freely, and crucially they were trained using data scraped at an industrial scale, contributing to degradation of the Web for humans.

▲

soulofmischief a day ago | parent [-]

Since Llama 2, the models have been commercially licensed under an acceptable use policy.

So you're able to use them commercially as you see fir, but you can't use them freely in the most absolute sense, but then again this is a thread about restricting the freedoms of organizations in the name of a 25-year-old law that has been a disgrace from the start.

> contributing to degradation of the Web for humans

I'll be the first to say that Meta did this with Facebook and Instagram, along with other companies such as Reddit.

However, we don't yet know what the web is going to look like post-AI, and it's silly to blame any one company for what clearly is an inevitable evolution in technology. The post-AI web was always coming, what's important is how we plan to steward these technologies.

	▲	strogonoff a day ago \| parent [-]
		The models are either commercial or not. They are, and as such they monetise the work of original authors without their consent, compensation, and often in violation of copyleft licensing. > The post-AI web was always coming “The third world war was always coming.” These things are not a force of nature, they are products of human effort, which can be ill-intentioned. Referring to them as “always coming” is 1) objectively false and 2) defeatist.