We need LLMs that have a certificate of origin.

For instance a GPL LLM trained only on GPL code where the source data is all known, and the output is all GPL.

It could be done with a distributed effort.

ptnpzwqd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not necessarily a bad idea, but I think the bigger issue here and now is the increasing assymmetry in effort between code submitter and reviewer, and the unsustainable review burden on the maintainers if nothing is done.

▲

nottorp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think the licensing issues are the main problem, but the spam.

▲

andy12_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Honestly, given that that GPL model would be far below SOTA in capabilities, what exactly would be its use-case? Why would anyone try to use an inferior LLM if they can get away with using a superior one?

	▲	duskdozer 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It doesn't make sense, because GPL means only GPL comes out, not only GPL can go in: >Many of the most common free-software licenses, especially the permissive licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, BSD licenses (in the three-clause and two-clause forms, though not the original four-clause form), MPL 2.0, and LGPL, are GPL-compatible. That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict, and the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole (but the other license would not so apply). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#GPL_comp... A model that contains no GPL code makes sense so that people using non-GPL licenses don't violate it.

▲

duskdozer 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Rather, LLMs that do NOT contain GPL code.