Are licenses that can be altered after the fact even legal? Feels like more companies would use them if it was...
But a document like this which basically has a bunch of words followed by a "Just kidding" line, are not enforceable, because it contradicts the previous language. A judge would throw the whole thing out because it doesn't meet the standard of a contract.
While for a copyrighted work the default is that you can’t use it unless you have a valid license, for an LLM the default is that you can use it unless you have signed a contract restricting what you can do in return for some consideration.
I don’t think these contracts are designed to be enforced because an attempt to enforce it would reveal it to be hot air, they are just there to scare people into compliance.
Better to download LLMs from unofficial sources to avoid attempted contract shenanigans.
Imagine if a landlord sued a tenant after 1 year for a new roof of an apartment because the contract stated that "tenant will be responsible for all repairs" but the tenant pointed out that the contract also said "the house is in perfect and new condition".
Both things cannot be true, so the judge throws it out.
Same thing here, you can't grant someone a license to use something and then immediately say, "You can't use this without checking with us first" it is contradictory.
1. This brings up the question of being able to agree to a contract before the contract is written which makes no sense.
2. If it's legal then why don't all companies do it. Instead, companies like Google regularly put out updated terms of service which you have to agree to before continuing to use their service. Often times you don't realize it because it's just another checkbox or button to click before signing in.
This clause allows them to arbitrarily change the contract with you at will, with no notice. That _shouldn't_ be enforceable but AFAIK that kind of contract has never been tested. It is _likely_ unenforceable though.