Copyright is arguably stronger in the USA, but there's a simple solution: just allow these companies to break the law.

Yo dawg, I heard you like language in your language.

Ollama has taken a bad turn lately (such is the nature of VC backed software). Maybe recommend kobold.cpp jan.ai for LLM noobs instead

Other than Apertus, are there any truly open source models - mainly what I want to know is models that list their training data publicly to ensure no theft of art and stuff. (i replied to your comment as you seem to know about these models, I have no clue abou this stuff)

I tried Deepseek R1 7B on my MacBook M3 Pro but it is shit compared to ChatGPT unfortunately

Saying an expensive product that requires servers to run is the only thing exempt from copyright is just handing a bunch of giant corporations a get out of jail free card.

Either reform copyright so more things are public domain or require AI companies to pursue licenses to training data.

Giving an unfair exemption to copyright laws solely to giant tech companies is just another corporate handout.

What I want is consistency, either apply the law equally and fairly or reform the whole system. Nobody, especially not big business, should be getting special carve-outs to be exempt from copyright infringement outside of 'fair use' considerations.

In my ideal world, IP law would be framed to protect novel ideas just long enough for inventors or creators to capitalize on their ideas and prevent outright 1:1 copying without any sort of innovative or transformational changes. It would also discourage squatting on things like patents- patent squatting and the like should lead to losing rights.

As with all things, nuance and context is required. I don't think we should be taxing poor people that heavily (if at all), but does that mean I should be against taxing the ultra-wealthy more? Obviously not.

I support copyright to protect developers and not hinder users, hobbyists, or the average person. I don't support it to only help massive companies who can manipulate the law to protect them from competition, but also not hinder them from stealing from the masses. They can afford to pay. If AI is actually as valuable as they say, the price of paying for the training data is trivial.

Copyright shouldn't only be helpful to big businesses. It should be most helpful to the average person. We have the opposite here. I support modifying copyright law to bind big businesses and liberate individuals. I don't need to be totally against it like you imply.

Why would it be an expansion? If you're using someone else's work, why wouldn't you need a license? If I write a book and publish it under CC-BY-NC, should Google be allowed to take my work for their commercial product without compensation or even attribution? Should Microsoft be allowed to create closed-source commercial Copilot off GPL source code?

"I didn't steal and distribute your work, I just made a machine distill it down and able to copy everything meaningful about it!"

Thanks for the reply. Never been on the HF site and doing it on mobile of the first time I seem lost. I couldn’t find it but I’m sure I will.

Disagree on Linux nvidia support, it works fine