[satvikpendem]

What kind of "value" are they capturing?

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.

[nickfromseattle]

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?

[satvikpendem]

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.

[nickfromseattle]

Thank you for the interesting discussion!

> 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?

[satvikpendem]

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.

[throw74774]

How do you propose that LLMs are paid for?

[satvikpendem]

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.

[throw74774]

Why should just LLMs be funded that way and not all software?

[satvikpendem]

You're right, all software should be funded that way.

[throw74774]

You cannot extend anyone’s work if you have no food or resources.

[satvikpendem]

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.

[throw74774]

All jobs are artificially kept, as would UBI be. They are all artifacts of the law.

Money is a way to allocate resources, and technological progress depends on people having incentives to contribute.

Do you think LLMs are a natural phenomenon?

[satvikpendem]

> technological progress depends on people having incentives to contribute

Does it? That stands in stark contrast to open source in general, where people contribute without any monetary incentives.

[throw74774]

> 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.

[satvikpendem]

Okay, if we take any incentives in general, that means anything we do is incentivized. Me eating food is incentivized by me not starving to death. It's not a particularly enlightening argument, hence why I preemptively added "monetary," as we were already talking about economic incentives and UBI, but if you want to explain what other incentives you are talking about, please do so, I would want to hear.

In today's world with no UBI, it's no wonder people bemoan the lack of funding, since it's an issue of actually living to produce the OSS one wants to make. If we have something akin to UBI, where we don't force people to stall technological progress in order to satisfy having a job, then this issue would disappear.

And to be clear, I'm also not against corporate funding for OSS, so long as it does remain OSS at the end of the day. Linux has corporate funding yet maintains its OSS status.