Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: llm

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > As for the docstring, I see that many models use ordinary software 
  > licenses, such as the Apache license. That could make it easier for us 
  > to define the criteria for a libre provider: is the model used by the 
  > provider available under a license the FSF considers a free software 
  > license

In general, an LLM system consists of two parts: the engine, which is
a program written in a programming language, and the trained neural
network.  For the system to be free, both parts must be free.

A number of engines are free software, but it is unusual for a
trained neural network to be free.

I think that "model" refers to the trained neural network.
That's how models are implemented.

To figure out whether a program is free by scanning it is hard to do
reliably.  That is why for LibreJS we designed a more precise method
for indicating licenses on parts of a file.  I recommend against trying
to do this.  It should not be a lot of work for a human to check this
and get a reliable result.

That applies to LLM systems that you download and run on your own machine.

As for LLMs that run on servers, they are a different issue entirely.
They are all SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute), and SaaSS is
always unjust.

See https://gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
for explanation.

So if you contact it over the internet, it should get a warning
with a reference to that page.

Maybe there is no need need to pass info about the terms of service.
Only a service can impose terms of service, and the mere fact that it
is a service, rather than a program to download and run, inherently
means the user does not control its operation.  That by itself is
reason for a notice that it is bad.

Any restrictions imposed by terms of service could add to the bad.
Perhaps it would be good to mention that that second injustice exists.
Maybe it would be good to say,

    This language model treats users unjustly because it does the user's
    computing on a computer where the user has no control over its operation.
    It is "Service as a Software Substitute", as we call it.
    See https://gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html.

    In addition, it imposes "terms of service", restrictions over what
    users can do with the system.  That is a second injustice.

    If society needs to restrict some of the uses of language model
    systems, it should do so by democratically passing laws to
    penalize those actions -- regardless of how they are done -- and
    not by allowing companies to impose restrictions arbitrarily on
    users.  The laws would be more effective at achieving the goal,
    as weil as avoidng giving anyone unjust power over others.

I think that it is better to present the URL of the web site's front page
rather than the terms of service themselves.  If we point the user
at the terms of service, we are directly helping the company impose them.

If the user visits the front page, perse can easily find the terms of
service.  But we will not have directly promoted attention to them.
This is a compromise between two flaws.



-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)