The comments so far aren’t real people posting how they really feel. An agenda or automata. Does that tell you I’m over the target or what?

Look my post is doing really well on the cyberescurity exchanges. So to all real developers and program managers out there:

Recommend the removal of any “primary logic” functional code examples out of your README.md, that’s it.

PSA, Here to help, Elias

Lmao you got some criticism and now you’re saying everyone else is a bot or has an agenda. I am a software engineer and my organization does not gain any specific benefits for promoting AI in any way. They don’t sell AI products and never will. We do publish open source work however, and per its license anyone is free to use it for any purpose, AI training included. It’s actually great that our work is in training sets, because it means our users can ask tools like ChatGPT questions and it can usually generate accurate code, at least for the simple cases. Saves us time answering those questions ourselves.

I think that the anti-AI hysteria is stupid virtue signaling for luddites. LLMs are here, whether or not they train on your random project isn’t going to affect them in any meaningful way, there are more than enough fully open source works to train on. Better to have your work included so that the LLM can recommend it to people or answer questions about it.

you got some criticism and now you’re saying everyone else is a bot or has an agenda
Please look up ad hominem, and stop doing it. Yes, their responses are a distraction from the topic at hand, but so were the random posts calling OP paranoid. I'd have been on the defensive too.

[Our company] publish[s] open source work ... anyone is free to use it for any purpose, AI training included
Great, I hope this makes the models better. But you made that decision. OP clearly didn't. In fact, they attempted to use several methods to explicitly block it, and the model trainers did it anyway.

I think that the anti-AI hysteria is stupid virtue signaling for luddites
Many loudly outspoken figures against the use of stolen data for the training of generative models work in the tech industry, myself included (I've been in the industry for over two decades). We're far from Luddites.

LLMs are here
I've heard this used as a justification for using them, and reasonable people can discuss the merits of the technology in various contexts. However, this is not a justification for defending the blatant theft of content to train the models.

whether or not they train on your random project isn’t going to affect them in any meaningful way
And yet, they did it while ignoring explicit instructions to the contrary.

there are more than enough fully open source works to train on
I agree, and model trainers should use that content, instead of whatever they happen to grab off every site they happen to scrape.

Better to have your work included so that the LLM can recommend it to people or answer questions about it
I agree if you give permission for model trainers to do so. That's not what happened here.

Why do you think they need your permission to use information you posted publicly to train their models? Copyright isn’t unlimited, and model training is probably fair use.

"Your honor, we can use whatever data we want because model training is probably fair use, or whatever".

I don't know what's worse, the fact that you think creators don't have the right to dictate how their works are used, or that you apparently have no idea what fair use is.

This might help; https://copyright.gov/fair-use/

authors should have no say in how published works are used.

Authors shouldn’t be paid for their labor?

I didn’t say that. you’re making a leap of logic

Yes, I am. Logically, if an author creates something and cannot control its distribution, it is available to everyone at no cost, therefore the author will never see a dime for their labor.

This discounts the donation model, because in practice, it rarely pays the bills. It also ignores patronage, because I doubt that you want the creation of art to be dependent on the generosity of the rich.

Thus, it makes sense for the author to maintain certain rights over the product of their labor. They provide the work under their terms, e.g. requiring payment for a copy, and that relatively low cost to the average Joe provides the money they need to buy food, pay rent, etc.

you recognize two well known cases where copyright is not necessary to get paid. I don’t think there is even an argument at this point. have a nice day.

Yes, and I said they’re not feasible, because they’ve been tried in the past and present and found to not work very well. If you disagree, I’m happy to hear your thoughts.