[throw74774]

Earlier you said:

> In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity.

Now you are saying that LLMs, and maybe even all software, should only be funded by the approval of appointed government committees.

Do you not see the contradiction in your viewpoint?

[satvikpendem]

Did you miss the parts where I mentioned that private individuals and corporations can also fund their own software, as we do today? My point is that as long as code, models, and data are open source, we will be free to mix and match and improve upon them, instead of only having rich corporations hold them. One way to do so is to have the government fund projects and open source them, as an alternative to corporate closed source control.

[throw74774]

> Did you miss the parts where I mentioned that private individuals and corporations can also fund their own software, as we do today?

You aren’t being honest.

Today we’re allowed to fund our own software and use it as we please for private purposes or to license it to others. Today there is no law forcing us to give it away.

This isn’t what you are proposing.

[satvikpendem]

How am I not being honest? If you misunderstand or don't read my words as they are written, that's not really my problem.

How do you know what I'm proposing? Perhaps we should have a law forcing software to be open source.