Comment by Gormo
2 hours ago
To whom would you attribute the greater part of that reduction in trust: the people using FOSS to train LLMs, or the people trying to block them?
2 hours ago
To whom would you attribute the greater part of that reduction in trust: the people using FOSS to train LLMs, or the people trying to block them?
People who break the social contract are the ones responsible for breaking the social contract, not the ones who take steps in response to social contract being broken.
So the questions here are (a) is any generally accepted social contract actually being broken, and (b) if so, who are the ones who are breaking it?
Are you asking how AI coding agents, the companies selling them and the individuals using them break the FOSS social contract (copyleft, attribution, upstreaming), or are you disputing that they do?
1 reply →
“No, no, what was she wearing?”
People who take steps in response to social contract being broken are the ones responsible for the steps they've taken, not the ones who break the social contract.
Its definitely the ones DDOSing websites while giving no attribution in any way to the original creators.
DDOSing websites seems to be an unrelated problem, and one that has traditionally been solved through response throttling and IP blocking.
Attribution is often required even on MIT or BSD licenses where code is being redistributed, either in original or modified versions, but that would relate to this discussion only to the extent that one regards using LLMs whose training data included a certain bit of code as itself constituting redistribution of that specific code -- but that in turn is a very debatable premise which really ought to be argued for, and not merely argued upon as though it is already generally recognized as true.
Why? You stole my stuff and now are pretending I need to argue for you to stop stealing it. It's a joke.