Gee whiz, what an interesting way of thinking. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

Very likely no license can restrict it, since learning is not covered under copyright. Even if you could restrict it, you couldn't add a "no LLMs" clause without violating the free software principles or the OSI definition, since you cannot discriminate in your license.

In that case, the neo-Luddites are worse than the original Luddites, then? Since many are definitely not "totally fine with the machines", and definitely do not confine their attacks only on the manufacturers that go against worker rights, but they include the average person in their attacks. And the original Luddites already got a lot of hate for attempting to hold back progress.

Are you sure? A survey by the YouTuber Games And AI found that the vast majority of indie game developers are either using, or considering using AI. Like around 90%.

This article commits several common and disappointing fallacies:

1. Open weight models exist, guys.

2. It assumes that copyright is stripped when doing essentially Img2Img on code. That's not true. (Also, copyright != attribution.)

3. It assumes that AI is "just rearranging code". That's not true. Speaking about provenance in learning is as nonsensical as asking one to credit the creators of the English alphabet. There's a reason why literally every single copyright-based lawsuit against machine learning has failed so far, around the world.

4. It assumes that the reduction in posts on StackOverflow is due to people no longer wanting to contribute. That's likely not true. Its just that most questions were "homework questions" that didn't really warrant a volunteer's time.