singpolyma3

Sure but that's rather different from productive collaboration. People have previously replaced those things with Netflix or video games which also cannot replace human collaboration

I don't think LLMs can replace human collaboration. More like replace documentation and editor drudgery

TFA mentions this product in the first paragraph and how much the product sucks as the whole motivation for the project.

Thousands or more people already have copies and the license explicitly is irrevocable and allows redistribution. So if they take it off HF and HF is ok with that, people will just upload to anywhere else.

"outpaced by SOTA" doesn't matter at all, the models we have are plenty good enough for most real tasks.

This doesn't seem like an actual court decision? Also it specifically says "if you use AI as a tool... then you probably own it" which, how else can you use AI? It doesn't do anything without a human wielding it, which has been the basis for all copyright claims so far.

Open doesn't just mean accessible and never has

Qwen smaller sizes are right?

DeepSeek 4.1 flash

> Open source never implied that commercial applications were authorized.

Um. Yes. That is explicitly what open source means.

I've not heard anything about model outputs. Do you have an actual case to cite?

Only one way to find out!

There's not even any point in that IMO. A model doesn't "know" things anyway everything useful it's going to get from tool calls and context.

We already have all the open weight models though. They can't retroactively close them.

Sure but people used "open weight" for weights that were open, because "open source" doesn't make much sense for something that has no source.

Now we have these "open inspired but not open" licensed weights and they want to keep the term.

I'll stick with DS4.1 flash. Open and capable

Only been hoping to abolish it for my entire adult life.