Comment by soulofmischief 2 days ago
You're free to believe whatever fantasy you wish, but as someone who frequently consults an LLM alongside other resources when thinking about complex and abstract problems, there is no way in hell that Karpathy intentionally limits his options by excluding LLMs when seeking knowledge or understanding.
If he did not believe in the capability of these models, he would be doing something else with his time.
What you see as copyright violation, I see as liberation. I have open models running locally on my machine that would have felled kingdoms in the past.
I personally see no issue with training and running open local models by individuals. When corporations run scrapers and expropriate IP at an industrial scale, then charge for using them, it is different.
What about Meta and the commercially licensed family of Llama open-weight models?
I have not researched closely enough but I think it falls under what corporations do. They are commercially licensed, you cannot use them freely, and crucially they were trained using data scraped at an industrial scale, contributing to degradation of the Web for humans.
AI is more important than copyright law. Any fight between them will not go well for the latter.
Truth be told, a whole lot of things are more important than copyright law.
Conflating natural law -- our need to eat -- with something we pulled out of our asses a couple hundred years ago to control the dissemination of ideas on paper is certainly one way to think about the question.
A pretty terrible way, but... certainly one way.
One can believe in the capability of a technology but on principle refuse to use implementations of it built on ethically flawed approaches (e.g., violating GPL licensing laws and/or copyright, thus harming open source ecosystem).