Yeah, I really can't comprehend these sentiments as anything other than an "I don't like AI" argument. FOSS has always been about just writing code and putting it out into the world where others can do as they please with it.

I see a lot of risks involved in people surrendering their own decision-making to LLMs, but that's a question of how they're used, not how they're trained. The idea that using FOSS software to train LLMs is somehow a violation of FOSS norms just doesn't seem valid.

▲

xigoi 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> FOSS has always been about just writing code and putting it out into the world where others can do as they please with it.

Not true. Most FOSS licenses require attribution and many require derivatives to be released under the same license.

▲

Gormo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, but I guess I'm not seeing the relevance here. Are we seeing some greater-than-normal wave of people redistributing FOSS code without attribution, or creating derivative works without adhering to the license terms? LLM training doesn't seem to be either of these things.

▲

xigoi an hour ago | parent [-]

We are seeing megacorporations (SlopenAI, Antslopic, Microslop, etc.) distributing derivatives of open-source code (their LLMs) without attribution.

	▲	Gormo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Can you point to some specific examples of products shipped by the companies I assume you're referring to here that are in fact unattributed derivative works of GPL-licensed software? Or are you saying that you think anything generated by an LLM qualifies as a derivative work of anything included in its training data?