> Yet, this shift made me re-evaluate the open source code publishing. Prior to that, I have been positive about free and open software, and considered this to be the default mode for work such as kefir. I did not require any justifications from myself to publish something. Now, however, I feel more and more that the main beneficiaries of my unpaid work are companies scraping the internet to train large language models. Currently accepted status quo in this area goes against my own intentions in licensing this work under GNU GPLv3. Publication has ceased to be the "null hypothesis" for me, and requires explicit mental justification which I am not able to provide.
I feel this pain, one of my small donation driven sites has been destroyed by crawlers who just ignore robots.txt and burn the site into the ground.
Sort of jokingly I proposed an update to the "spam fax" law:
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?
Both would resolve to the same question, no?
There seems to be an implicit premise here that any work generated by an LLM whose training data includes a particular bit of code itself constitutes a redistribution of that code. I've yet to encounter any strong arguments substantiating this premise as a general principle, and my own suspicion is that it is not valid as a general principle, given the nature of how LLMs operate.
It's certainly possible that specific instances of LLMs lazily copy-pasting code from public repos may exist, and the extent to which this is happening is something that can be substantiated by empirical examples, so if you have any to point to, I'd be interested in looking at them. However, where this is happening, it ought to be regarded as a failure modality of LLMs, and not something that implicates the underlying nature of LLMs, given that their intended purpose is to function as stochastic generators that do not merely copy-paste input data.
My initial feeling here is that using open-source code to train LLMs is not per se a violation of the generally accepted FOSS social contract, but rather that attempting to restrict specific use cases of FOSS-licensed code on the basis of normative opinions unrelated to the license terms is a violation, or at least a rejection, of that social contract. I'm not fully committed to this position, though, and would welcome well-reasoned arguments to the contrary.
[deleted]
“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.
[deleted]
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.
What? What is being "stolen" from you?
Are you now layering the old and tired "copyright infringement = stealing" argument on top of the still unsubstantiated premise that all LLM training is copyright infringement?
Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. I spend most of my time now building my own little software ark, and I aspire to no longer think of programming in the next few years. I feel like the creative economy in general will be unrecognizable in the near future, maybe nonexistent. I wonder what modes of collaboration on ideas might form in the next few years.
The sad thing is I feel trapped on all sides of the debate, I wrote a book about LLMs and human creativity (spoiler Humans win for a long time) but I was going to do it as a blog series, instead I published https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXCSY4W8 because I felt at least I might get a bit back for literally 100’s of hours of my life I poured into the book and my editor and friends who read and provided reviews.
And I push a lot of open source code including a ton for the SWGEmu project, but now I’m of mixed mind to stop pushing anything public. I can’t decide, am I talking out of both sides of my mouth, it’s a confusing time to navigate for sure.
Indeed sad, congrats on publishing your book though. I’ve certainly felt a bit of that same angst myself.
I think SWGEmu (cool project, just learned of it from you!) do represent some optimism though. Maybe these sorts of passion projects will take over the space?
Here is what the purveyors of AI don't seem to realise. You can bend copyright law all you want in order to train your models on whatever you can grab, but in the absence of genuine protection of their creative work authors are simply not going to be publishing at all.
I think they see it all too well. They still think they can make bank today while it lasts, whatever comes after is some other shareholder's problem. And if we're talking about open source, killing it might be a positive side effect, they'll be ready to sell you a closed source alternative when you no longer have options.
I don't think we're going back to closed source. I think we're going back to guilds. Aka. closed knowledge.
Furthermore, if people not only stop publishing, but also take down already published works, it will create a moat around already existing Language Models
And the more they DDOS small websites — instead of respectfully scraping once — the more realistic my conspiracy theory looks.
People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. And fighting to be noticed in an unending torrent of slop.
Without any material or immaterial benefits? And with one's work being ground up and turned into weights for the next version of the machine that's threatening one's employment?
Great. More work for AI then.
> The sender pays, not the receiver.
You have a hole here. Your web server is sending the response and the bot is receiving.
Fix that and … profit? :-)
oh good point got that backwards… OMG my fax brain didn’t even think about it.
I'm trying to compose a better wording, but my attempts aren't working. The best I've got is:
> The initiator of the communication pays, not the server operator.
This project in particular has been unconcerned with new coding practices so far, primarily, because I derive pleasure from hand-written implementations of my ideas, and believe that overcoming challenges the hard way is the main value I get from it.
This 100% the same for me. Outside of work where speed is more important than quality, and I work with people that use AI, I don't use AI at all on my own projects. It poisons the mind and the soul. Ok that sounds dramatic, but I felt down up until the point where I started hand writing everything again. Software engineering is still fun and powerful, and the hell with where the world is going.
I'm also very hesitant to release any new works (code, artworks, etc.) to the public. I usually release code under the GPL or AGPL, but I don't think any of those choices are properly respected by the AI crawlers, and subsequent "mixing into" those models.
Multiple times I got partially broken "citations" of GPL licensed code out of the models as answers to basic research questions (aka prompts) w/o any mentioning of the original license applied to the code. Just adding some random bugs every 10th line doesn't make it not a direct derivate. Image generators happily generated Sonics or Bart Simpsons (w/o directly prompting for that either). No mentions that those are copyrighted characters either.
Seems to me LLMs have changed some things. I'm not sure how it's best put, but it used to be:
- Seeing code (or a blogpost or whatever) was a result from effort where thought had gone into it. The writer paid effort so the reader didn't have to.
- There'd be some level of attachment to what you've put effort into.
With LLMs, that's undermined: it's easy to produce thoughtless imitations. Code or comments where thought didn't go into it. So, seeing some result isn't an indication of skill, but also not even an indication thought went into it.
I guess there's still something lost if someone isn't going to share code they've put thought into. -- But on the other hand, if it's just for me & I don't have to share it with a wider audience, getting LLMs to write out code isn't so expensive.. so code itself isn't necessarily something to value so much.
But LLMs don’t seem particularly good at inventing new ways to code (or write, or…). It’s literally all derivative. So what happens in 10 years? Are we headed for a great stagnation?
That’s because they cannot invent anything. They’re reductive, not creative.
> But LLMs don’t seem particularly good at inventing new ways to code (or write, or…). It’s literally all derivative.
I think the key part is how much thought goes into something.
Optimistically, LLMs are good at taking unstructured input, and (probably) producing the intended output from that. -- This allows for an interesting new way of coding: a set of instructions don't need to be as rigorous as a shell script, but can be natural language.
That part surely extends creativity. An LLM will be familiar with domain ideas I'm not, even if an LLM is completely disinterested in doing things.
Pessimistically, I think it's still not clear what the right way of interacting online with all of this is (other than clear expectations of "no AI")... in some sense LLM output is worthless to share, in the sense that I'm just as capable of asking the LLM to output something as anyone else is.
It’s like arguing that nobody is going to invent new ways to ride horses in the age to automobile.
If the way humanity advances were via new ways to ride horses, then yes.
You made me curious. Has anyone invented new ways to ride horses in the age of the automobile?
There was a relatively big shift in riding style right around the same time of the first mass production of vehicles.
I don't know... I've been writing code for good twenty years (15 professionally).
First, I think it's the best time to write software since so much boring stuff can be automated. I can put my thoughts into what I'm trying to achieve instead of how. To put it otherwise, I think about big picture much more than about mundane details like dealing with particularities of a programming language.
Second, most people were using SO to solve just about any issue they had. The number of developers producing truly original code was minimal even 10 years ago.
One of the very few small compilers which passes the full gcc torture tests. But for me kefir is good enough as the reference small compiler. Not as fast as tcc, but more correct
I've been taking a look at the source and it's a work of art :O
If a one-person show, closing it up would effectively kill it? Or (re?)turn it into a hobby project developed at snail pace.
If some community exists: fork coming up?
One person show. Effectively, it is dead since now it became the proprietary toy of its author. The author is entitled to do what he wants with his own creation, however.
I put my site behind a username/password wall, to block LLM bots.
Spambots learned to autoregister 30 years ago. Do LLMs not do that? Crazy.
same, not worth getting 100GB of content getting scrapped every other day.
Same situation some time ago with Solar assembler
It was nice hearing about it. If this is a healthy direction for the project, then so be it. At least source to previous versions is still available.
What a well-rounded nicely written announcement that touches on all parts of the argument without any rage baiting or flex etc. It would be easy to just ramble against AI and how its the end of the world etc but the author focused on a point that's not even related to use or misue of AI in software but rather how we have made it acceptable that large corporate companies can skirt copyright without any issue and make rivers of money with it. This problem extends not only to coding but other industries as well.
Instead of a derivative work we have a machine that creates derivative works. I fail to see how this is fair use.
That a function which is at its core literally trained to be as close to its input as possible is not (yet, court cases are still pending) IP theft is one of the great mysteries of our time.
Worse, because the sometimes valuable real time answers are generated by scraping the web and rewriting the IP in plain sight.
A couple of academic psychopaths who write horrible academic code themselves steal all valuable human knowledge right before our eyes and market it as "tech".
There should be a new civil war against these modern plantation owners and slave holders.
People taking your work and not giving anything back was ALWAYS the risk you took when writing free software. LLM training doesn't change that much. That the us military no doubt is using gcc to compile embedded software for their icbm:s no doubt irks the gnu people. But you can't have it any other way. "You can only use my software for good things" just is not consistent with "free software".
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.
> 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.
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.
We are seeing megacorporations (SlopenAI, Antslopic, Microslop, etc.) distributing derivatives of open-source code (their LLMs) without attribution.
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?
There's an almost intergalactic level of irony in the extent to which open source has benefited giant corporations and the military at the expense of individuals, and ultimately contributed to the commercialised enclosure of software IP.
I suppose you could argue it also indirectly led to the empowerment of non-developers to create their own vibe coded solutions. But we're not quite there yet.
And the AI IP that makes that possible is still enclosed rather than open.
Sure, Free Software hasn't been the vehicle for societal change that RMS and others certainly hoped. I remember being flamed out in a user group for suggesting that our conference shouldn't be held in a "non-free" country such as Morocco, Turkey, or China because it's counter-productive to freedom. Very few people actually got it. But it's orthogonal to LLM trainers also using free software in "non-approved" ways.
> There's an almost intergalactic level of irony in the extent to which open source has benefited giant corporations and the military at the expense of individuals, and ultimately contributed to the commercialised enclosure of software IP.
Could you perhaps explain that irony a bit more explicitly?
Can you provide any examples of "commercialized enclosure of software IP" somehow backwashing into the FOSS ecosystem and closing things up that are already open?
Don't open-weight models sort of returning the favor?
> But we're not quite there yet.
Judging from the number of projects I've seen from people who aren't software developers, we're there enough.
Before LLMs, you could use the GNU GPL or other copyleft licenses to protect your code from being used to develop non-free software. Unfortunately, the courts have decided that LLMs are free to ignore licenses.
> Yet, this shift made me re-evaluate the open source code publishing. Prior to that, I have been positive about free and open software, and considered this to be the default mode for work such as kefir. I did not require any justifications from myself to publish something. Now, however, I feel more and more that the main beneficiaries of my unpaid work are companies scraping the internet to train large language models. Currently accepted status quo in this area goes against my own intentions in licensing this work under GNU GPLv3. Publication has ceased to be the "null hypothesis" for me, and requires explicit mental justification which I am not able to provide.
I feel this pain, one of my small donation driven sites has been destroyed by crawlers who just ignore robots.txt and burn the site into the ground.
Sort of jokingly I proposed an update to the "spam fax" law:
https://www.karlbunch.com/random/website-protection-act/
This is essentially the digital world transforming from a high trust society into a low trust one. Sad to see.
Not even just digital; much of the world is shifting from high trust to low trust as well: https://social.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/...
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?
Both would resolve to the same question, no?
There seems to be an implicit premise here that any work generated by an LLM whose training data includes a particular bit of code itself constitutes a redistribution of that code. I've yet to encounter any strong arguments substantiating this premise as a general principle, and my own suspicion is that it is not valid as a general principle, given the nature of how LLMs operate.
It's certainly possible that specific instances of LLMs lazily copy-pasting code from public repos may exist, and the extent to which this is happening is something that can be substantiated by empirical examples, so if you have any to point to, I'd be interested in looking at them. However, where this is happening, it ought to be regarded as a failure modality of LLMs, and not something that implicates the underlying nature of LLMs, given that their intended purpose is to function as stochastic generators that do not merely copy-paste input data.
My initial feeling here is that using open-source code to train LLMs is not per se a violation of the generally accepted FOSS social contract, but rather that attempting to restrict specific use cases of FOSS-licensed code on the basis of normative opinions unrelated to the license terms is a violation, or at least a rejection, of that social contract. I'm not fully committed to this position, though, and would welcome well-reasoned arguments to the contrary.
“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.
What? What is being "stolen" from you?
Are you now layering the old and tired "copyright infringement = stealing" argument on top of the still unsubstantiated premise that all LLM training is copyright infringement?
Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. I spend most of my time now building my own little software ark, and I aspire to no longer think of programming in the next few years. I feel like the creative economy in general will be unrecognizable in the near future, maybe nonexistent. I wonder what modes of collaboration on ideas might form in the next few years.
The sad thing is I feel trapped on all sides of the debate, I wrote a book about LLMs and human creativity (spoiler Humans win for a long time) but I was going to do it as a blog series, instead I published https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXCSY4W8 because I felt at least I might get a bit back for literally 100’s of hours of my life I poured into the book and my editor and friends who read and provided reviews.
And I push a lot of open source code including a ton for the SWGEmu project, but now I’m of mixed mind to stop pushing anything public. I can’t decide, am I talking out of both sides of my mouth, it’s a confusing time to navigate for sure.
Indeed sad, congrats on publishing your book though. I’ve certainly felt a bit of that same angst myself.
I think SWGEmu (cool project, just learned of it from you!) do represent some optimism though. Maybe these sorts of passion projects will take over the space?
Here is what the purveyors of AI don't seem to realise. You can bend copyright law all you want in order to train your models on whatever you can grab, but in the absence of genuine protection of their creative work authors are simply not going to be publishing at all.
I think they see it all too well. They still think they can make bank today while it lasts, whatever comes after is some other shareholder's problem. And if we're talking about open source, killing it might be a positive side effect, they'll be ready to sell you a closed source alternative when you no longer have options.
I don't think we're going back to closed source. I think we're going back to guilds. Aka. closed knowledge.
Furthermore, if people not only stop publishing, but also take down already published works, it will create a moat around already existing Language Models
And the more they DDOS small websites — instead of respectfully scraping once — the more realistic my conspiracy theory looks.
People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. And fighting to be noticed in an unending torrent of slop.
Without any material or immaterial benefits? And with one's work being ground up and turned into weights for the next version of the machine that's threatening one's employment?
Great. More work for AI then.
> The sender pays, not the receiver.
You have a hole here. Your web server is sending the response and the bot is receiving.
Fix that and … profit? :-)
oh good point got that backwards… OMG my fax brain didn’t even think about it.
I'm trying to compose a better wording, but my attempts aren't working. The best I've got is:
> The initiator of the communication pays, not the server operator.
I'm also very hesitant to release any new works (code, artworks, etc.) to the public. I usually release code under the GPL or AGPL, but I don't think any of those choices are properly respected by the AI crawlers, and subsequent "mixing into" those models.
Multiple times I got partially broken "citations" of GPL licensed code out of the models as answers to basic research questions (aka prompts) w/o any mentioning of the original license applied to the code. Just adding some random bugs every 10th line doesn't make it not a direct derivate. Image generators happily generated Sonics or Bart Simpsons (w/o directly prompting for that either). No mentions that those are copyrighted characters either.
Seems to me LLMs have changed some things. I'm not sure how it's best put, but it used to be:
- Seeing code (or a blogpost or whatever) was a result from effort where thought had gone into it. The writer paid effort so the reader didn't have to.
- There'd be some level of attachment to what you've put effort into.
With LLMs, that's undermined: it's easy to produce thoughtless imitations. Code or comments where thought didn't go into it. So, seeing some result isn't an indication of skill, but also not even an indication thought went into it.
I guess there's still something lost if someone isn't going to share code they've put thought into. -- But on the other hand, if it's just for me & I don't have to share it with a wider audience, getting LLMs to write out code isn't so expensive.. so code itself isn't necessarily something to value so much.
But LLMs don’t seem particularly good at inventing new ways to code (or write, or…). It’s literally all derivative. So what happens in 10 years? Are we headed for a great stagnation?
That’s because they cannot invent anything. They’re reductive, not creative.
> But LLMs don’t seem particularly good at inventing new ways to code (or write, or…). It’s literally all derivative.
I think the key part is how much thought goes into something.
Optimistically, LLMs are good at taking unstructured input, and (probably) producing the intended output from that. -- This allows for an interesting new way of coding: a set of instructions don't need to be as rigorous as a shell script, but can be natural language.
That part surely extends creativity. An LLM will be familiar with domain ideas I'm not, even if an LLM is completely disinterested in doing things.
Pessimistically, I think it's still not clear what the right way of interacting online with all of this is (other than clear expectations of "no AI")... in some sense LLM output is worthless to share, in the sense that I'm just as capable of asking the LLM to output something as anyone else is.
It’s like arguing that nobody is going to invent new ways to ride horses in the age to automobile.
If the way humanity advances were via new ways to ride horses, then yes.
You made me curious. Has anyone invented new ways to ride horses in the age of the automobile?
Best I could find: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1174605
There was a relatively big shift in riding style right around the same time of the first mass production of vehicles.
I don't know... I've been writing code for good twenty years (15 professionally).
First, I think it's the best time to write software since so much boring stuff can be automated. I can put my thoughts into what I'm trying to achieve instead of how. To put it otherwise, I think about big picture much more than about mundane details like dealing with particularities of a programming language.
Second, most people were using SO to solve just about any issue they had. The number of developers producing truly original code was minimal even 10 years ago.
One of the very few small compilers which passes the full gcc torture tests. But for me kefir is good enough as the reference small compiler. Not as fast as tcc, but more correct
I've been taking a look at the source and it's a work of art :O
Surprised no one has yet linked to the source https://sr.ht/~jprotopopov/kefir/
So how big is the community around this project?
If a one-person show, closing it up would effectively kill it? Or (re?)turn it into a hobby project developed at snail pace.
If some community exists: fork coming up?
One person show. Effectively, it is dead since now it became the proprietary toy of its author. The author is entitled to do what he wants with his own creation, however.
I put my site behind a username/password wall, to block LLM bots.
Spambots learned to autoregister 30 years ago. Do LLMs not do that? Crazy.
same, not worth getting 100GB of content getting scrapped every other day.
Same situation some time ago with Solar assembler
It was nice hearing about it. If this is a healthy direction for the project, then so be it. At least source to previous versions is still available.
What a well-rounded nicely written announcement that touches on all parts of the argument without any rage baiting or flex etc. It would be easy to just ramble against AI and how its the end of the world etc but the author focused on a point that's not even related to use or misue of AI in software but rather how we have made it acceptable that large corporate companies can skirt copyright without any issue and make rivers of money with it. This problem extends not only to coding but other industries as well.
Instead of a derivative work we have a machine that creates derivative works. I fail to see how this is fair use.
That a function which is at its core literally trained to be as close to its input as possible is not (yet, court cases are still pending) IP theft is one of the great mysteries of our time.
Worse, because the sometimes valuable real time answers are generated by scraping the web and rewriting the IP in plain sight.
A couple of academic psychopaths who write horrible academic code themselves steal all valuable human knowledge right before our eyes and market it as "tech".
There should be a new civil war against these modern plantation owners and slave holders.
People taking your work and not giving anything back was ALWAYS the risk you took when writing free software. LLM training doesn't change that much. That the us military no doubt is using gcc to compile embedded software for their icbm:s no doubt irks the gnu people. But you can't have it any other way. "You can only use my software for good things" just is not consistent with "free software".
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.
> 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.
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.
We are seeing megacorporations (SlopenAI, Antslopic, Microslop, etc.) distributing derivatives of open-source code (their LLMs) without attribution.
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?
There's an almost intergalactic level of irony in the extent to which open source has benefited giant corporations and the military at the expense of individuals, and ultimately contributed to the commercialised enclosure of software IP.
I suppose you could argue it also indirectly led to the empowerment of non-developers to create their own vibe coded solutions. But we're not quite there yet.
And the AI IP that makes that possible is still enclosed rather than open.
Sure, Free Software hasn't been the vehicle for societal change that RMS and others certainly hoped. I remember being flamed out in a user group for suggesting that our conference shouldn't be held in a "non-free" country such as Morocco, Turkey, or China because it's counter-productive to freedom. Very few people actually got it. But it's orthogonal to LLM trainers also using free software in "non-approved" ways.
> There's an almost intergalactic level of irony in the extent to which open source has benefited giant corporations and the military at the expense of individuals, and ultimately contributed to the commercialised enclosure of software IP.
Could you perhaps explain that irony a bit more explicitly?
Can you provide any examples of "commercialized enclosure of software IP" somehow backwashing into the FOSS ecosystem and closing things up that are already open?
Don't open-weight models sort of returning the favor?
> But we're not quite there yet.
Judging from the number of projects I've seen from people who aren't software developers, we're there enough.
Before LLMs, you could use the GNU GPL or other copyleft licenses to protect your code from being used to develop non-free software. Unfortunately, the courts have decided that LLMs are free to ignore licenses.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]