Sure, but I’m talking about

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/76468/cant-buy-new-ampere-gpu-thats-because-nvidia-sold-them-to-miners/index.html

Except nivdia was prioritizing crypto sales

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/76468/cant-buy-new-ampere-gpu-thats-because-nvidia-sold-them-to-miners/index.html

Sure a number were sold through gaming distribution handles, but that was more scalpers than crypto I suspect.

All the crypto farms were buying in bulk

Gamers don’t order pallets

1. he’s using a tool that took billions in funding.

2. that’s not how open source licensing work.

3. no, I’m saying some licneses restrict LLM usage in the form of derivative work must also be licensed under the same license. Using that work as a starting point requires you to also open that portion of code.

side note:

https://www.securityweek.com/github-copilot-chat-flaw-leaked-data-from-private-repositories/

why does AI have access to private code?

That’s not what an LLM is doing is it.

Sure, but that’s just your view.

And also not how LLMs work.

They gobble up everything and cause unreadable code. Not learning.

The fuck you talking about.

Using a tool with billions of dollars behind it robinhood?

How is stealing open source prihcets code regardless of license stealing fr corporation’s?

the solution isn’t to lie down in defeat. its boycott.

LLMs have stolen works from more than just artists.

ALL of public repositories at a minimum have been used as training, regardless of licence. including licneses that require all dirivitive work be under the same license.

so there’s more than just lutris stollen.

so you draw the line at stealing artists work, but not programmers work?

Ah yes, if anyone is against AI, because of its problems, then we’ve all lost our minds.

Ahh yes, how dare a community run and funded project have community accountability.

The project has several ways of being community funded.

So your full of shit. Got it.

okay, repeating an unverified claim is better?

You claim

https://vger.to/lemmy.ml/comment/24346212

That its completlt rewritten, with the implication that its not using the project as input.

So yes, you do should back that up

That’s valid in a debate, but not quite how courts work?

I’m not a lawyer, just someone petty enough to read laws.

The discovery requests in the law suit will require yo turn over all training data. From there, it will be up to the AI makers to prove that it wasn’t used, if it was fed into training data. Which if it was open source, almost certainly was.

That as side.

Your making an equal claim that it wasn’t. With an equal amount of proof. So what your sating bears as much weight as the other person.

okay, you have to be able to prove the LLM didn’t learn off of the original source material. Because if it is, its dertivitve work, making it subject to LGPL.

because writing is a good skill to have professionally.

also, you have the itch, so why care if people read?

do it for you then!