[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]

Who would decide what to fund?