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.
How are public works projects funded now? Same way. And if corporations want to fund certain projects too, they can. It's simple, extrapolate how we fund current projects and do the same with software, it's not that complicated.
> 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?