In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity. I don't want anyone necessarily trying to capture rent-seeking "value" out of their work that cannot be extended by others. That is one reason why I abhor copyright, patents, and intellectual property in general.
Is an LLM that slurps up all data created ever, without compensating the creators of that data, and then charges for that access not the definition of "rent seeking"?
Next question, does this share similarities with academic journals that most folks do consider rent seeking organization?
I never said that was okay either. LLMs should be open source and open data. Yes, this viewpoint shares similarities with academic journals that also rent seek.
> I never said that was okay either. LLMs should be open source and open data.
> That is one reason why I abhor copyright, patents, and intellectual property in general.
If it turns out that closed-source LLMs become the most valuable companies in the world, any thoughts on how to align / reconcile your ideals around the reality of how the technology has developed in my hypothetical example?
There are multiple gradations of value. Linux exists even as Windows and macOS does also. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. It could be the case that only closed source LLMs are the most prevalent, but we have open source LLMs already available today that run on device and for free essentially. I don't necessarily see the world only moving towards closed source LLMs.
Through government funds, as other public works projects are. Or if people want to privately create their own, they can do so, as long as the results are open.
That is an economic argument for something like UBI, not an argument to artificially keep jobs and limit technological progress just so people can make money.
> where people contribute without any monetary incentives.
First of all you added in the word ‘monetary’, to straw-man the position.
Secondly, even if we run with your straw-man, I see little evidence this is true. Most successful projects are either corporately funded or begging for corporate funding. You see article after article here bemoaning the lack of funding for open source.
What do you mean they aren’t paying their fair share? You just said they bought the rights.
Also it seems like you are saying we should just pre-judge cases without using the courts. Basically just end the rule of law. Not sure that’s a good plan.
In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity. I don't want anyone necessarily trying to capture rent-seeking "value" out of their work that cannot be extended by others. That is one reason why I abhor copyright, patents, and intellectual property in general.