3 ms·

like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. it is always about who it is benefits the most. > the LLMs that aren't bad which LLM is not

like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. it is always about who it is benefits the most. > the LLMs that aren't bad which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code?

CamperBob2 11mo ago
You don't get to unilaterally make laws for the rest of us, which is what you are trying to do when you throw around terms like "stealing" in contexts where they have no legal meaning. Sorry. If the incumbent copyright interests insist on picking an unnecessary fight with LLMs or AI in general, they will and must lose decisively. That applies to all of the incumbents, from FSF to Disney. Things are different now.
- throwaway290 11mo ago
  The laws already exist. If you side with corrupt judges disrespecting these laws and interpreting them in favor of big tech corps, it's your choice)
  - CamperBob2 11mo ago
    I see; the laws aren't in question or in flux, but it's the judges who are wrong. Enlightening. I still don't understand how copyright maximalism has suddenly become so popular on a site called "Hacker News." But it's early here, and I'm sure I'm not done learning exciting new things today.
AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
> like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. Malware isn't bad for Russian crime syndicates, but we're generally content to regard them as the adversary and not care about their satisfaction. That isn't the case for someone who wants to use an LLM to fix a bug in their printer. They're doing the good work and people trying to stop them are the adversary. > which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code? Let's drive a stake through this one by going completely the other way. Suppose you train an LLM only on GPL code, and all the people distributing and using it are only distributing its output under the GPL. Regardless of whether that's required, it's allowed, right? How would you accuse any of those people of a GPL violation?
- throwaway290 11mo ago
  I see the mega wealthy in charge of LLMs who benefit the most from destroying copyleft and individual IP as adversaries) > That isn't the case for someone who wants to use an LLM to fix a bug in their printer. They're doing the good work they take advantage of temporary situation for good outcome but longer term they benefit those people doing shady stuff and concentrate power to them. > Suppose you train an LLM only on GPL code, and all the people distributing and using it are only distributing its output under the GPL That seems fair? but that's not what happens except by accident.

like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. it is always about who it is benefits the most. > the LLMs that aren't bad which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code?

CamperBob2 11mo ago

You don't get to unilaterally make laws for the rest of us, which is what you are trying to do when you throw around terms like "stealing" in contexts where they have no legal meaning. Sorry. If the incumbent copyright interests insist on picking an unnecessary fight with LLMs or AI in general, they will and must lose decisively. That applies to all of the incumbents, from FSF to Disney. Things are different now.

throwaway290 11mo ago
The laws already exist. If you side with corrupt judges disrespecting these laws and interpreting them in favor of big tech corps, it's your choice)
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  I see; the laws aren't in question or in flux, but it's the judges who are wrong. Enlightening. I still don't understand how copyright maximalism has suddenly become so popular on a site called "Hacker News." But it's early here, and I'm sure I'm not done learning exciting new things today.

AnthonyMouse 11mo ago

> like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. Malware isn't bad for Russian crime syndicates, but we're generally content to regard them as the adversary and not care about their satisfaction. That isn't the case for someone who wants to use an LLM to fix a bug in their printer. They're doing the good work and people trying to stop them are the adversary. > which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code? Let's drive a stake through this one by going completely the other way. Suppose you train an LLM only on GPL code, and all the people distributing and using it are only distributing its output under the GPL. Regardless of whether that's required, it's allowed, right? How would you accuse any of those people of a GPL violation?

throwaway290 11mo ago
I see the mega wealthy in charge of LLMs who benefit the most from destroying copyleft and individual IP as adversaries) > That isn't the case for someone who wants to use an LLM to fix a bug in their printer. They're doing the good work they take advantage of temporary situation for good outcome but longer term they benefit those people doing shady stuff and concentrate power to them. > Suppose you train an LLM only on GPL code, and all the people distributing and using it are only distributing its output under the GPL That seems fair? but that's not what happens except by accident.