Given recent guidance from the US Copyright Office, I doubt there are real copyright issues or enforceable restrictions on commercial use.

I would say that someone trying to sell the original model would be the only case that could have a real challenge, and even then its not that clear cut to me.

Everyone else using these fine tuned models, I don't think there is a case. Everyone's making non-copyrightable scaffolding. Read the recent USCO guidance.

You can monetize and sell things that have no copyright protection, you just can't prevent others from doing it too. aside from trying to make it inconvenient with the packaging.

There’s a big difference between copyright for material produced by a model, and copyright on the software and weights for the model.

As far as I know, USPTO has said that works crested primarily by AI may not receive copyright protection, but I don’t think there’s any indication that the software to run AI is not copyrightable. Maybe?

The code to train and run the model perhaps, but model weights lack two fundamental requirements available in normal code: human authorship and creativity. Because these models were the result of a purely mechanical process and thus lack these properties, they can't be eligible for copyright protection. At least not under current US law.

That said, regulatory capture is strong in the US. It would not surprise me if we see these laws changed.

We clearly need to run the weights _through_ a GPT model because that seems to strip copyright from them :D

You can use the summarize, generate technique to strip copyright from source code too.

You want people brave enough to fight meta for control of the work meta did and shared for free? It's attitudes like this that mean LLaMA will serve as a lesson for other companies to not share as much. It's too bad, because in normal open source, I like that the community usually tells people to abide by the license terms chosen by the authors. But in this, everyone's just demanding unrestricted use.

There is a real concern that this particular technology, as powerful as it is, will be kept behind the doors of the biggest corps and information gleamed from prompts will be further used to our collective detriment.

I am personally still coming to terms with it, but it is not just wanting stuff. It is making sure society does not get too separated in terms of power ( because it is already pretty stratified ).

I agree. I think that's why it's important that the lesson isn't "if you give an inch, the community will take a mile." Otherwise, they will keep it behind closed doors.

While they'll release useless minor models here and there, I think these companies will keep this tech behind closed doors regardless of what the community does.

Humanity needs to act quick in order to avoid yet another extreme consolidation of power.

Even if they wanted to keep it behind close doors, it could easily get leaked.

I've assumed llama was intentionally public to "commoditize the compliment"