Isn’t the problem though that AI companies charge money for their models trained on open source and copyleft projects?
Contrast that with most other businesses - tech or otherwise - where there's always strings and trickery attached to any transaction.
When you use the code as is or create a derivative work. The knowledge embodied by the code and encapsulated in an LLM doesn't strike me as needing to give attribution because the code the LLM would product doesn't match any particular open source code base.
At least that's my thinking. I'd be curious to see an example where you think attribution is necessary and how you would actually do it given an output from an LLM.
I will continue to hold that position until such a time that we get a better answer than:
> we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derivative_work&o...
I think my interpretation, based on your link, holds: unless the LLM output (transformation) substantially bears the original source code author's creation and personality, there is nothing to give attribution to.
Does anyone trust Ai companies not to eventually spy on you and feed you ads? It’s not like we haven’t seen this playbook before.
I'm commenting on how things are now, not how they may turn out at some point in the future. This is in response to complains that are also mostly about now, not about hypothetical.
WRT LLMs in particular, open-weight models offset the risk a lot. As long as they track SOTA by couple months, that's the most we lose in capability should the commercial vendors start to enshittify their inference services.
> strings and trickery
One could argue that at this initial stage, just as with surveillance capitalism and services like "free email", the general public is being treated like the natives who sell their land for a few trinkets. Once we are passed this stage and just like other surveillance tech our social and economical life becomes effectively dependent on these services, we can review if we have not sold our future for some (arguably dubious) "value".
Go back to early '00s. How did you "value" the "transaction" of handing over the handling of your personal electronic correspondences to a corporate entity that may or may not be an extension of the security state?