You mean people making contributions to solve problems and scratch each others' itches got displaced by people seeking social status and/or a do-at-your-own-pace accreditation outside of formal structures, to show to prospective employees? And now that LLMs start letting people solve their own coding problems, sidestepping their whole social game, the credit seekers complain because large corps did something they couldn't possibly have done?
I mean sure, their contributions were a critical piece - in aggregate - individually, any single piece of OSS code contributes approximately 0 value to LLM training. But they're somehow entitled to the reward for a vastly greater value someone is providing, just because they retroactively feel they contributed.
Or, looking from a different angle: what the complainers are saying is, they're sad they can't extract rent now that their past work became valuable for reasons they had no part in, and if they could turn back time, they'd happily rent-seek the shit out of their code, to the point of destroying LLMs as a possibility, and denying the world the value LLMs provided?
I have little sympathy for that argument. We've been calling out "copyright laundering" way before GPT-3 was a thing - those who don't like to contribute without capturing all the value for themselves should've moved off GitHub years ago. It's not like GitHub has any hold over OSS other than plain inertia (and the egos in the community - social signalling games create a network effect).
Wrong and completely unfair/bitter accusation. The only people rent seeking are the corporations.
What kind of world do you want to live in? The one with "social games" or the one with corporate games? The one with corporate games seems to have less and less room for artists, musicians, language graduates, programmers...
You are attributing arguments to people which they never made. The most lenient of open source licenses require a simple citation, which the "A.I." never provides. Your tone comes off as pretty condescending, in my opinion. My summary of what you wrote: "I know they violated your license, but too bad! You're not as important as you think!"
> they can't extract rent now that their past work became valuable for reasons they had no part in.
That is not the case at all. If I donate food to Africa, I'm happy if it goes to humans. I'm not happy if a Mafia organization steals the food in transit, repackages it and sells it.
GitHub hosts a lot of source code, including presumably the code it trained CoPilot on. So they satisfy any license that requires sharing the code and license, such as GPL 3. Not sure what the problem is.
Large language models are used to aggregate and interpolate intellectual property.
This is performed with no acknowledgement of authorship or lineage, with no attribution or citation.
In effect, the intellectual property used to train such models becomes anonymous common property.
The social rewards (e.g., credit, respect) that often motivate open source work are undermined.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.