You are not gonna protect abstract ideas using copyright. Essentially, what he's proposing implies turning this "TGPL" in some sort of viral NDA, which is a different category of contract.

It's harder to convince someone that a content-focused license like the GPLv3 protects also abstract ideas, than creating a new form of contract/license that is designed specifically to protect abstract ideas (not just the content itself) from being spread in ways you don't want it to spread.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

LLMs don't have anything to do with abstract ideas, they quite literally produce derivative content based on their training data & prompt.

[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

LLMs abstract information collected from the content through an algorithm (what they store is the result of a series of tests/analysis, not the content itself, but a set of characteristics/ideas). If that's derivative, then ALL abstractions are derivative. It's not possible to make abstractions without collecting data derived from a source you are observing.

If derivative abstractions were already something that copyright can protect then litigants wouldn't resort to patents, etc.