Comment by throwaway290
10 hours ago
like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. it is always about who it is benefits the most.
> the LLMs that aren't bad
which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code?
10 hours ago
like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. it is always about who it is benefits the most.
> the LLMs that aren't bad
which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code?
> like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody.
Malware isn't bad for Russian crime syndicates, but we're generally content to regard them as the adversary and not care about their satisfaction. That isn't the case for someone who wants to use an LLM to fix a bug in their printer. They're doing the good work and people trying to stop them are the adversary.
> which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code?
Let's drive a stake through this one by going completely the other way. Suppose you train an LLM only on GPL code, and all the people distributing and using it are only distributing its output under the GPL. Regardless of whether that's required, it's allowed, right? How would you accuse any of those people of a GPL violation?
You don't get to unilaterally make laws for the rest of us, which is what you are trying to do when you throw around terms like "stealing" in contexts where they have no legal meaning. Sorry.
If the incumbent copyright interests insist on picking an unnecessary fight with LLMs or AI in general, they will and must lose decisively. That applies to all of the incumbents, from FSF to Disney. Things are different now.