Post B5Qbfrr8QJociu4lrE by cwebber@social.coop
 (DIR) More posts by cwebber@social.coop
 (DIR) Post #B5QbfpwjWX6anggDJ2 by cwebber@social.coop
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       RE: https://social.coop/@cwebber/116426025287444979I see myself getting subtooted by various people, and let me clarify what this thread is, and is not. My opinions on LLM usage are more complicated than "good vs bad".But I have created a scoped analysis here. My opinion is that we are facing a *licensing hygiene crisis* from a situation where we do not and probably will not know the licensing situation of these tools for some time.There are only two viable scenarios I can see:- LLM output is unusable and a copyright mess that cannot be incorporated in any FOSS project- *All* LLM output is effectively in the public domain.I am willing to accept either one of those, but the lack of knowledge of which situation we are facing makes me concerned about LLM based contributions entering FOSS projects on copyright grounds.(There are plenty of other debates one can have about LLMs also, I have scoped them out of this particular thread.)RT: https://social.coop/users/cwebber/statuses/116426025287444979
       
 (DIR) Post #B5QbfqIME8P1sknU0m by craignicol@glasgow.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cwebber wondering if we'll see option 2 tested in the courts after all the "clean room" LLM-generated clones of Claude.I suspect that's not a court case Anthropic wants. What enterprise wants to buy something that makes their source code public use?
       
 (DIR) Post #B5QbfqUlU0KMVEbOLo by cwebber@social.coop
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @craignicol The irony indeed is that most corporations don't actually want either of those outcomes. They want a magical outcome where somehow they get to use the tool and continue to both be the gatekeepers but also not need to be concerned with compliance themselves. For me not for thee, etc.
       
 (DIR) Post #B5QbfqhAjsFh7iPIgq by craignicol@glasgow.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cwebber given how much the backers talk about wanting moats, I wonder if we'll see some "licencing" agreement similar to the RIAA or MPAA where anyone rich enough to join the club gets unrestricted use, and everyone outside the club gets sued if they make the club members uncomfortable 😨
       
 (DIR) Post #B5QbfquzuTJLoasLEu by craignicol@glasgow.social
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cwebber which is of course the worse outcome for open source. Used as inputs for the machine, but need to stay clear of outputs lest it's tainted. But also at risk of being cloned and sued anyway like that singer-songwriter who lost the copyright on her own music.
       
 (DIR) Post #B5QbfrNiBiHPFeJGzo by cwebber@social.coop
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Maybe I am the only "oldschool FOSS licensing wonk" who worries about this, I am walking away with the impression that I am fairly alone amongst my peers who I thought would share these concerns. And maybe if that means I should give up in arguing about it.But boy howdy if it DOES turn out to be an issue (and the whole point is I DON'T KNOW if it will and don't think ANYONE does) my Cassandra complex will inflate so much it will probably kill me
       
 (DIR) Post #B5Qbfrr8QJociu4lrE by cwebber@social.coop
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Well that's not true I'd say @wwahammy is also an oldschool FOSS licensing wonk and seems equally concerned ;P