Is massive capital expenditure not also required to enforce the GPL? If some company steals your GPLed code and doesn't follow the license, you will have to sue them and somebody will have to pay the lawyers.

▲

davidw an hour ago | parent [-]

> Is massive capital expenditure not also required to enforce the GPL?

It's nowhere near the order of magnitude of the kind of spending they're sinking into LLM's. The FSF and other groups were reasonably successful at enforcing the GPL, operating on a budget 1000's of times smaller than that of AI companies.

▲

cloverich an hour ago | parent [-]

Right but LLM companies are building frontier models with frontier talent while trying to sock up demand with a loss leader strategy, on top of an historic infrastructure build out.

Being able to coat efficiently run frontier models is i think, not a high priced endeavor for an org (compared to an individual).

IMO the proposition is little fishy, but its not totally without merit and imo deserves investigation. If we are all worried about our jobs, even via building custom for sale software, there is likely something there that may obviate the need at least for end user applications. Again, im deeply skeptical, but it is interesting.

	▲	overfeed a minute ago \| parent [-]
		> Being able to coat efficiently run frontier models is i think, not a high priced endeavor for an org Running proprietary model would make you subject to whatever ToS the LLM companies choose on a particular day, and what you can produce with them, which circles back to the raison d'etre for the GPL and GNU. Until copyright is dead and buried, there is no need for copyleft to change tack. Open source is easier to counterfeit/license-launder/re-implement using LLMs because source code is much lower-hanging fruit, and is understood by more people than closed-source assembly.