Open source really should mean open training dataset, not merely open weights. There are some truly open source models and you can reproduce their training process if you have the compute. I can't think of a reason why those kinds of models would be incompatible with Stallmanism. Presumably they will get better and more widespread over time, like free software
replyLLMs are even more proprietary than regular proprietary software, I think you've got it right here. They are destroying the free software movement and it seems like most people don't even realize what's happening.
replyLLMs are a fundamentally different category of thing to software. Developing them is closer to breeding cows than writing code.
replyI definitely agree on this. You don't program an LLM and thus come to an understanding of what it does in the same way you do for a compiler, an operating system, a game engine, a CRUD app, or a web front-end.
replySomething that's the output of mass-effort machine learning algorithms is categorically different to human-made-and-understandable software. Do we have terms for these different categories?
[dead]
replyThe damage isn't restricted to software. AI is the intellectual equivalent of asbestos.
replyAsbestos is an amazing fire retardant. That's why nearly every building built before we knew how cancerous it was contains it.