> That is basically your argument. Like AI is a copyright theft machine, with companies owning the entire stack and being able to take away at will, and comitting crimes like decompiling source code instead of clean room is not a selling point either...

Stop trying to make this into some abstract argument. It's not an argument anymore. It's already happened.

How one might choose to characterize the reality, is irrelevant. A vast (and growing) amount of source code is more open, for better or worse. Granted, this is to the chagrin of subgroups that had been pushing different strategies.

> It's already happened.

Agreed.

> Stop trying to make this into some abstract argument.

As you mentioned, it's not an abstract argument. It's statements of fact.

> A vast (and growing) amount of source code is more open...

No, not at all.

1) If you honestly believe that major tech companies will permit both copyright- and license-washing of their most important proprietary code simply because someone ran it through an LLM, you're quite the fool. If someone "trained" an LLM on -say- both Windows 11 and ReactOS, and then used that to produce "ReactDoze" while being honest about how it was produced, Microsoft would permanently nail them to the wall.

2) The LLMs that were trained on the entirety of The Internet are very, very much not open. If "Open"AI and Anthropic were making available the input data, the programs and procedures used to process that data, and all the other software, input data, and procedures required to reproduce their work, then one could reasonably entertain the claim that the system produced was open.

This is looking at the current situation through the old lens.

That ship has sailed. The revolution is happening. We live in a new reality now, one where we're still trying to figure out what rules should even be.

And there will be winners and losers, and copyright and patent law will be modified in an attempt to tame the chaos, with mixed results because of all of the powerful players on both ends.

You can live on the front of it for high risk/reward, or at the back for safety. But either way, you're going to exist in this new reality and you need to decide your risk appetite.

Your set of statements and their surrounding context reminds me very much of the mass grave scene in Kubrick's Vietnam War movie Full Metal Jacket: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=670Y3ehmU74>

I'm not sure why it would. Kubrick was criticizing the false morality of the entire adventure, mixed with common bureaucratic fuckups in an unaccountable environment, with tragic results.

I'm talking about a change brought on by a new technology, where the market (i.e. all of us collectively) push it forward, like the internet revolution and subsequent consolidation. Good shit happens. Bad shit happens. People get rich, people get poor, people get left behind. You can argue the moral implications, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle, just like you couldn't snuff out the industrial revolution. So at some point you have to decide: Where will I fit in all of this?

> I'm not sure why it would.

Oh, no doubt. I'm certain that that is because

> Kubrick was criticizing the false morality of the entire adventure, mixed with common bureaucratic fuckups in an unaccountable environment, with tragic results.

relying on a "intro to cinema criticism"-level summary of the themes of the entire work almost always leaves you entirely ignorant of the specific themes and characterizations that are explored in a particular scene.

Watch the scene with your actual eyes and ears, maybe a couple of times. Ruminate on it and consider what aspects of your statements and their surrounding context might cause someone to be reminded of it.

This argument commits the same fallacy as the argument against piracy; copying is not stealing, because the original still remains. A lockpicked and squatted house means someone else does not have that house, it's a zero sum game which information which is freely copyable does not align with.

That only works if you assume that the exclusive value is in the object and not the labour.

The reproduction of the object is essentially free in the internet, but the labour to produce it isn't.

If I spent 3 years making my codebase, and you copy paste the git repo, yeah your access to the information is not going to replace the original. But your labour cost is 0 and you can undercut the 3 years of expense, loans or debt I adquired to produce it.

Btw the FBI murdered Aaron Swartz for attempting to open access to research papers, Mark Zuckemberg admitted to stealing those ssame papers through libgen and showed off the results of Llama and his stock price went up.

I think the piracy argument falls apart when the class warfare and 2 tier justce system is openly weaponised towards open access

Labor doesn't have value inherently, it's about what is produced by said labor. These days even the labor to create something falls to zero via LLMs so I'm not sure the point is valid these days.

> Labor doesn't have value inherently

Almost nothing does. Value is largely subjective. You deciding it is irrelevant to you is as inherently worthless as the marxist ideal that labour is the maximal value of society.

The non subjective opinion is that there is a necesary amount of work/energy requiered to create things and that the created things can be consumed/used by others.

LLMs do not reduce labor to 0, the energy to power the GPU, the labor to create the gpus, the labor to train the models is all there, as well as all the labor to produce the original material the LLM is trained on. Even if the subjective experience of someone consuming the created thing is the same.

If you're worried about theft, then make backups.

Code isn't like a house, you can just copy it and put the copy somewhere safe.