1. No. The weights are not a work of authorship. Nobody takes any intentional action to make the weights be what they are. Only works of authorship are copyrigh

1. No. The weights are not a work of authorship. Nobody takes any intentional action to make the weights be what they are. Only works of authorship are copyrightable. And a copyright comes into being as the property of an author... which, as I said, models don't have. The closest thing to authorship that happens is curation of the training data, but that's too tenuous to support a copyright. For one thing, the curation choices aren't directly targeted to shape the weights themselves, only the output when a separate program runs inference on those weights. And even for the output, there's probably not enough direct control there to support much of a claim of authorship. And the people building the models had better hope that's true, because if that curation is strong enough to support a copyright, then it's really hard to claim that the contributions from the training data aren't strong enough to make the model a derivative work of every single training item. 2. No. The last thing we need is more ways for people with a bit of capital to get vast sweeping IPR claims. Also, isn't about time HN got a real Markdown engine?