[satvikpendem]

I'm talking about the concept of transformation, not the specific legal language, which, again, I said is not worth discussing, because the legal concept of intellectual property is not useful.

No, not just now, since forever. I suppose Stallman being right all along is about this concept. And just to be clear, I'm not a supporter of current closed source AI companies, like I said I want to see open models succeed.

As I asked above, it really does look like no one can explain why LLM training is bad, besides saying it's bad. Therefore I will continue to reject IP as a concept.

[kazinator]

Obviously, since you reject IP, presumably you would be okay to copy and paste code out of some GNU program into your own program, without attribution, and then, if you feel like it, release that program under the least restrictive terms possible (as close to the public domain as you could practically get away with).

So discussions revolving about doing so less directly through training a model just add distracting details that don't matter.

If everyone did that (due to there not being any rules against that), then fewer people would write programs under free licenses. Many such developers are volunteers, whose only payment is that the work product is theirs to license how they want.

Having that taken away from us is discouraging.

We haven't done anything to deserve such a "fuck you".