洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) :nonbinary:
@hongminhee@hollo.social · Reply to meek cynics

@cnx To be honest, I tried using conventional machine translation to properly understand your comment, but it was useless, so I had to use an LLM. I run into this kind of situation often.

My position is that the public should reclaim the LLMs that are currently monopolized by private corporations. On this topic, I would appreciate it if you read my previous article, Histomat of F/OSS: We should reclaim LLMs, not reject them.

@liaizon @hypolite @yhancik

writings.hongminhee.org

Histomat of F/OSS: We should reclaim LLMs, not reject them

A few days ago, I came across a blog post titled On FLOSS and training LLMs that articulates a growing frustration within the free and open source software…

1 reply

Hypolite Petovan
@hypolite@friendica.mrpetovan.com · Reply to 洪 民憙 (Hong Minhee) :nonbinary:

@hongminhee I read it and I'm not impressed. The FLOSS concept has largely failed, unable to enforce even its mildly strict licenses, and it's fundamentally different from running an LLM as it is only human capital involved.

There is no reclamation of LLMs, as these require an insane amount of cash to be constantly trained, and no private company will willfully release the weights of a model they spent so much on training for so little gain (so far, but it's not looking good).

Yet another unenforceable license wouldn't change anything, the current LLM systems broke all the intellectual property laws in the book, and are on good track to get away with it.

The idea is cute but simply doesn't match with reality.