Perhaps roughly as long as the law turns a blind eye to AI corps flagrantly violating the attribution requirements of software licenses that apply to their training data, as well as basically ignoring other copyright requirements at scale. Fair use, my eye.

if someone is blinding slurping up content to feed to LLMs, without checking to see if a particular source is OK with that, they are arguably not innocent either.

Neither situation is analogous to a booby-trapped shotgun door blowing off the face of a would-be burglar.

If tomorrow Antropic decide to charge you extra if you interact with someone who talked badly about them, I'm still in my right to talk shit about them.

Whose law? Good luck trying to summon a random GitHub user to a court within your jurisdiction.

But with that said: I think it's time we figure out how to exclude the metaphorical arsonists.

Always has been.

I think the GP is focusing on:

> I guess we're giving up on the idea that you're free to do whatever you want with software you own? ... But I see this as no different from DRM and user hostile

If I clone an open source git repository, I should be free to point an LLM to review it in any way I choose. I can't contribute code back, but guess what, I don't want to. I want to understand the codebase, and make modifications for me to use locally myself. I don't have a dev team, I have a feature need for my own personal use.

The LLM enables that. The projects that deliberately sabotage the use of LLMs cease to be providing software that meet the 'libre' definition of free software.