Post #2900983

2026-04-18 22:13 UTC

@cwebber@social.coop Re: “polluting”, my reply is: https://fedi.copyleft.org/@bkuhn/116426437134023846 (elsewhere in thread). Re: “copyleft-only #LLM”: I didn't propose that. I proposed copylefting the human-modified output of LLMs. Re: “two scenarios”: IMO you propose a false dichotomy. I hope you come to one of #SFC's public sessions on this, as I'd be glad to talk more about it, & this discussion doesn't lend itself to online debate because it's so complex. cc: @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social @jedbrown@hachyderm.io #AI #OpenSource #FOSS

Replies (1)

@cwebber@social.coop 2026-04-19 01:37

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org > Re: “copyleft-only #LLM”: I didn't propose that. I proposed copylefting the human-modified output of LLMs. You didn't propose it, but @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org brought it up here: https://fedi.copyleft.org/@ossguy/116411885602822736 You two have been speaking fairly collaboratively in this thread, so I'm assuming relatively synced at the moment. Since I presume the goal of "only train on copylefted [and implied, compatible] software" would not be, from your end, to erase copyleft, my assumption here is that the hope was that the output was also copylefted. And I presume reading this that you do hope that would be the presumption: https://fedi.copyleft.org/@bkuhn/116428083639528264 @richardfontana@mastodon.social @jedbrown@hachyderm.io

Open ##2900984