21–30 of 87 posts
I find it fascinating that this is just some _plumbing_ around some LLM - sold as a product and "AI coworker". They don't own the LLM model. You're just one silent update from not delivering what you promised.
Seems unethical.
I find it fascinating that this is just some _plumbing_ around some LLM - sold as a product and "AI coworker". They don't own the LLM model. You're just one silent update from not delivering what you promised.
Ignorering the questionable legality of this entire thing, which might fall out in favor of it being a legal activity. Calling the project OpenViktor is as dumb as committing secrets to GitHub. For the love of reason call it something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are also new jobs emerging to safeguard a companies assets that were created by AI. New white hat hacking opportunities. Anyways, however you put this, I see this as a property theft and taking pride at open sourcing does not justify it.
It's also disingenuous to call it open source as that might tempt others to use it believing that it actually is open source. Let's call it what it is - stolen IP and released without permission of the author. Sure, it's good that it opens the debate as to whether that's ethical given that's essentially what the model itself is doing, but it's very clear in this instance that he's just asked for and been given a copy…
This sort of exposure is good, in my opinion it enables competition to emerge with true business moat rather than just "do it first, do it fast, worry last" type of thing we're seeing.
There are gonna be some really interesting legal decisions to read in the coming years, that’s for sure… --- The rest of this comment is irrelevant, but leaving for posterity, I had the wrong Viktor - it's getviktor.com not viktor.ai: Edit: this one particularly interesting to me as both parties are in the EU. VIKTOR.ai is a Dutch company and the author of this post is Polish. The ToS for Viktor.ai include the follow…
Terms of service might matter more for terminating that user account. Whole ordeal is just plain copyright violation. The author had no licence to that internal code, and whitewashing it with LLM will achieve nothing. That case is much clearer than that recent GPL->BSD attempt story.
