This appears to be mostly due to fringe / activist views about copyright, rather than anything to do with quality or principle. If it was the latter I could get on board, as in instituting some standards against slop. But in reality it’s just letting activists hijack with their agenda.

Fringe / activist views about copyright pretty much describes open source / free software so why do you think that is an argument against doing this?

All vibe coded projects are in the public domain by definition.

The question is if the massive copyright infringement that all the major labs engaged in means that all work derived from llms is under the copyright of the original owners of the work.

It is quite possible to keep track of what piece of training data changed the value of what weight to the point that the activations for any piece of code can be attributed back to the original copyright holder, including the random initial values which are public domain. I've done this on a toy project for gpt2.

The discussion doesn't appear to have been in public at all; all there is on the linked issue is a bunch of first-time posters who wouldn't have been able to vote.

activism is advocating for principles, don’t you see the connection?

That's just open source and software freedom views though