> With regulation and compensation, only rich companies would be able to do that

Well, with some imagination, you can have regulation that forces companies to open up, not just close down.

Imagine a law that stipulates that if you want to offer "LLM-inference-as-a-service", you need to also publish exact details about how it was trained, what datasets were used and also offer those exact weights for download.

Sure, this would never happen, but just offering another perspective on how laws and regulation can be used if it was wanted, locking stuff down and pulling up the ladder behind you isn't the only way to use laws, although that is a very popular reason and approach.

▲

ben_w a day ago | parent [-]

I am unclear how this would help anyone?

Any argument that writers and artists lose from these existing, would remain unchanged.

	▲	embedding-shape a day ago \| parent [-]
		The argument was "It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up". Remove the "selling" part, and force them to give the weights away for free, and at least it's no longer robbery that few rich people benefit from. Kind of like how public and free torrent piracy is easier to morally and ethically defend than piracy where they sell access to pirated content. I think we're past the point were we can feasible pay for "IP-protected bytes" digitally, better to just move past the concept. It's been slowly disappearing for a long time now already, most of us make most of our money on live events and other AFK activities rather than actually selling our art, maybe time for the rest to get onboard with this too.