I don't understand this mindset. I solve problems on stackoverflow and github because I want those problems to stay solved. If the fixes are more convenient for people to access as weights in an LLM... who cares?

I'd be all for forcing these companies to open source their models. I'm game to hear other proposals. But "just stop contributing to the commons" strikes me as a very negative result here.

We desperately need better legal abstractions for data-about-me and data-I-created so that we can stop using my-data as a one-size-fits-all square peg. Property is just out of place here.

▲

tombert 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have mixed opinions on the "AI=theft" argument people make, and I generally lean towards "it's not theft", but I do see the argument.

If I put something on Github with a GPL 3 license, it's supposed to require anyone with access to the binary to also have access to the source code. The concern is, if you think that it is theft, then someone can train an LLM on your GPL code, and then a for-profit corporation can use the code (or any clever algorithms you've come up with) and effectively "launder" your use of GPL code and make money in the process. It basically would be converting your code from Copyleft to Public Domain, which I think a lot of people would have an issue with.

▲

techpression 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I find it very easy to understand, people don’t generally want to work for free to support billionaires, and they have few venues to act on that, this is one of them.

There are no ”commons” in this scenario, there are a few frontier labs owning everything (taking it without attribution) and they have the capability to take it away, or increase prices to a point where it becomes a tool for the rich.

Nobody is doing this for the good of anything, it’s a money grab.

▲

__MatrixMan__ 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Were these contributions not a radical act against zero-sum games in the first place? And now you're gonna let the zero-sum people win by restricting your own outputs to similarly zero-sum endeavors?

I don't wanna look a gift horse in the mouth here. I'm happy to have benefited from whatever contributions were originally forthcoming and I wouldn't begrudge anybody for no longer going above and beyond and instead reverting to normal behavior.

I just don't get it, it's like you're opposed to people building walls, but you see a particularly large wall which makes you mad, so your response is to go build a wall yourself.

	▲	imiric 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not about building a wall. It's about ensuring that the terms of the license chosen by the author are respected. This is why I think permissive licenses are a mistake for most projects. Unlike copyleft licenses, they allow users to take away the freedoms they enjoy from users of derivative works. It's no surprise that dishonest actors take advantage of this for their own gain. This is the paradox of tolerance. "AI" companies take this a step further, and completely disregard the original license. Whereas copyleft would somewhat be a deterrent for potential abusers, it's not for this new wave of companies. They can hide behind the already loosely defined legal frameworks, and claim that the data is derivative enough, or impossible to trace back, or what have you. It's dishonest at best, and corrupts the last remnants of public good will we still enjoy on the internet. We need new legal frameworks for this technology, but since that is a glacial process, companies can get rich in the meantime. Especially shovel salespeople.

▲

ajjahs 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]