> We will work with the creators, writers, and artists, instead of ripping off their life's work to feed the model.

i support this but the Smarter Than Me types say it's impossible. It's not possible to track down an adequate number of copyright holders, much less get their permission, much less afford to pay them, for the number of works required in order to get the LLM to achieve "liftoff".

I would think that as I use Claude for coding, it would work just as well if it didnt suck down the last three years of NYT articles as if it did. There's a vast amount of content that is in the public domain, and if you're ChatGPT you can make deals with a bunch of big publishers to get more modern content too. But that's my know-nothing take.

maybe the issue is more about the image content. Screw the image content (and definitely the music content, spotify pushing this slop is immensely offensive), pay the artists. My code OTOH is open source, MIT licensed. It's not art at all. Go get it (though throw me a few thousand bucks every year because you want to do the right thing).

It's not' impossible', it's economically unviable. There's a difference. We really should be mandating that companies that don't pay fair market prices for the data they use to train their models must open source everything as reparation to humanity.

It is not an axiom that LLMs even have the right to achieve "liftoff". They are obvious instruments of plagiarism that often just reorder sentences so as not to get caught. They can be forbidden.

If you don't mind the oligarchs stealing your code, that is your prerogative. Many other people do mind.