[palata]

> I mean, to believe that you first need to believe that having access to the source code is somehow a problem.

How in the world did you get there from what I said? Open source code has a licence that says what the copyright owner allows or not. LLMs are laundering machine in the sense that they allow anybody to just ignore licences and copyright in all code (even proprietary code: if you manage to train on the code of Windows without getting caught, you're good).

> At most, the problem lies in people ignoring what rights a FLOSS license grants to end users

Once it's been used to train an LLM, there is no right anymore. The licence, copyright, all that is worthless.

> Also a telltale sign is the fact that these blind criticisms [...]

No clue what you are talking about here.

[motorest]

> LLMs are laundering machine in the sense that they allow anybody to just ignore licences and copyright in all code (...)

No. Having access to the code does that. You only need a single determined engineer to do that. I mean, do you believe that until the inception of LLMs the world was completely unaware of the whole concept of reverse engineering stuff?

> Once it's been used to train an LLM, there is no right anymore.

Nonsense. You do not lose your rights to your work just because someone used a glorified template engine to write something similar. In fact, your whole blend of comment conveys a complete lack of experience using LLMs in coding applications, because all major assistant coding services do enforce copyright filters even when asking questions.

[palata]

> do you believe that until the inception of LLMs the world was completely unaware of the whole concept of reverse engineering stuff?

The scale makes all the difference! A single determined engineer, in their whole life, cannot remotely read all the code that goes into the training phase. How in the world can you believe it is the same thing?

> Nonsense. You do not lose your rights to your work just because [...]

It is only nonsense if you don't try to understand what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if it is impossible to prove that the LLM was trained with copyrighted material, then the copyright doesn't matter.

But maybe your single determined engineer can reverse engineer any trained LLM and extract the copyright code that was used in the training?