[klelatti]

> Open-source software started as an act of charity – the world owes the likes of Linus Torvalds and Fabrice Bellard for endowing humanity with Linux, Git, and FFmpeg.

So Linux is a simple act of charity from one person. If the author so fundamentally misunderstands what Open Source software is in principle and Linux is in particular then I struggle to see how he's qualified to come to such a definitive conclusion on a subject as complex as foundation models.

[kelnos]

Not just that, the author explicitly acknowledges a bias against open source, likening it to socialism (which the author clearly doesn't like) and welfare ("handouts", in the author's words).

I don't find their opinions worth considering all too deeply, given that bias.

If closed-source consolidation of models happens, it'll be because capitalism encourages and incentivizes centralization and secrecy, not because of any other reasons the author outlines.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Not just that, the author explicitly acknowledges a bias against open source, likening it to socialism (which the author clearly doesn't like) and welfare ("handouts", in the author's words).

Which is extremely bizarre, because the most legitimate criticisms of socialism are its tendency to revert to authoritarianism or otherwise impose crooked rules on unconsenting people.

Whereas open source is... completely voluntary? It's like being opposed to private community organizations because a co-op might break the stranglehold a monopolist has on a market. The only one who doesn't want that is the monopolist.

Which is, incidentally, the reason the US now has a bunch of crooked laws inhibiting non-profits from engaging in things that compete with businesses, e.g. by providing a service for a competitive price near cost rather than entirely for free solely out of donations.

[mistrial9]

look where he works https://foundersfund.com/our_team