There's a valid moral question here, in short: why?
I care about helping other people.
Helping some type of amoral entity that's usually controlled by another amoral for-profit entity: why would I help those?
I care about helping other people.
Helping some type of amoral entity that's usually controlled by another amoral for-profit entity: why would I help those?
Honestly I agree that in the current state of things, it's fair for them to train on public data as long as the license doesn't forbid it. I learned to code this way, so it makes sense to allow AIs to do the same, for now. If it's a problem, just use another license.
You want to explicitly forbid AI training, not require attribution.
Who can say for sure which license is good in this new age?
Why should I care if some 3rd party is the middleman that builds the system that performs the transformation? I put out my code so that people can use it. The existence of said 3rd party doesn't restrict that in the slightest, in fact it enhances the reusability of my work which seems like a win-win.
Pension funds I'd kind of understand, on the other hand there is a huge generational conflict, the pensioners that rely on this in many places are actually the comparatively rich older people.
Llama, mistral and co.
Normally the "can't run on your hardware" is a little dubious, but given how insanely high the hardware requirements can get to run these I think it's meaningful here.
If anything i do helps to make the ecosystem around me better i'm for it.
And if you look at anything LLM right now, all the research happening, its not opensource doing the research. Its high paid google, ms, etc. people and academy replicates it fast for opensource.
We already have a give and take on both sides.
Without them, we would not have that at all.
I assume you mean open weight rather than open source, but: https://ai.meta.com/research/