[jraph]

> You are not creating software with the exact rules that I have made up in my head on how software should be made, so I'm going to build a wall and hate you and the code you make.

More like:

> You are creating software using a tool incurring massive risks and costs for the rest of us even though we don't use it ourselves, we don't want you here

.

> plenty of people are using open offline models to code

…that needed to be trained and required siphoning the web too.

[arkwin]

Open source developer: I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want!

World: creates LLMs

Open source developer: >:(

Maybe don't open source your software if you're going to get mad about it?

[bayindirh]

Personally, the reason I hate LLMs is not they trained on public code. They trained on code which doesn't allow that kind of thing to begin with.

Training LLMs is not the problem. Consent, violating copyleft licenses and other ethical issues is the problem.

IOW, I don't hate the tech. I hate how it's built. On top of infringements, being ignorant of others' labor and being proud of stealing what others done.

[lenkite]

> Open source developer: I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want!

No, you are describing a SPECIFIC License called the The Unlicense: https://opensource.org/license/unlicense

This is ONLY ONE such OSS license and does not apply to all OSS.

[arkwin]

US courts have ruled (for better or worse) that using code to train LLMs is a transformative piece of work and not subject to the original copyright.

[archagon]

I’m sure that the people making this kind of argument would be quite pissed indeed if I trained an LLM on their proprietary code and used it for my commercial projects.

[lenkite]

US Supreme Court has yet to make any explicit ruling though. It The EU top court (CJEU) is currently hearing arguments. I guess we will know in 2027-28 globally.

[JuettnerDistrib]

A big part of open source is about reciprocity: you taketh, you giveth.

Do LLM companies give back to the community?

[jraph]

That's somewhat beside the point and bayindirh addressed this, but I'll answer to this bit:

> I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want!

Well, no, it's rarely "for whatever they want". Most open source licenses require attribution, and copyleft licenses require sharing any derivative work under the same license under some conditions. The terms of the licenses open source developer matter and are not there just to look pretty.

This idea that free software is released under no conditions needs to die. The few restrictions open source developers want for their code need to be respected!

And yes, I'm kinda mad the few lines of code I released to the world probably helped those despicable companies to train their despicable artifacts. We couldn't have possibly anticipated that this was coming, but now we know, and indeed the question of releasing publicly at all should be reconsidered. At the same time, we can't always stop doing anything that has bad consequences because otherwise we stop doing anything. So yes, I might both continue publishing free software and be mad at the same time. Any objection?