alt Hacker News> This is a silly opinion to hold, isn't it? I mean, you release projects under a license with the express purpose of freely distributing your code among anyone in the world that may have any interest whatsoever, and even allow they themselves to share it with anyone they feel fit. But you are somehow outraged if people actually use said code?
You're making things up: the outrage is not that people used it, it's that the licence requires attribution at least, and opening the derivative product at worst. Token providers that trained on open source did neither.
> Please make it make sense.
I am skeptical that you didn't know the reason for the outrage because it's been repeated in every single thread where this was discussed.
I myself repeated it multiple times each time this feigned confusion you display appears.
Like I am doing now, yet again.
idk, all the code i've seen produced by an llm doesn't appear to be derived from anything. Also, the source code they were trained on does not exist in the model, it's impossible for the llm to return a code snippet from some other code base. The code snippet doesn't exist in the model in the first place. I guess another way to put it is show your code in the output of an llm that isn't being attributed correctly.