![](https://lemmy.redkrieg.com/pictrs/image/da4d3225-dd11-4d67-92ed-3f9b5bea3638.jpeg)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Nope, you’re looking at it wrong. The Dev got paid to write that code and for all of their 20 years experience. The code was freely given away after that. Nobody loses when knowledge is shared, humanity wins. It gets hairy when you have businesses whose model relies on giving some content away for free and locking some behind a pay wall. Obviously using all of that to train a model without paying anything implies that they never had a subscription, but if they did have one and gave the model access? What’s the difference between that and paying someone to read all those articles? What’s the difference between training a model and paying an employee while training them to expertise? We’re acting like these models are some kind of machine that chops up text and regurgitates it, but that could describe your average college freshman just as well. We’re fast approaching the point where the distinction is meaningless. We can’t treat model training any different from teaching a student.
I’m guessing this judge considers the telephone to be an example of negligent design as well. After all, the phone company doesn’t record every phone call I make and disconnect me if I mention an illegal drug.