Speaking as an SO contributor, I'm perfectly fine with having an LLM read my answers and produce output based on them. What I'm not okay with is said LLM being closed-weight so that its creator can profit off it. When I posted my answers on SO, I did so under CC-BY-SA, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to expect any derivatives to abide by both the letter and the spirit of this arrangement.
If the issue here was "just" training LLMs, like some AI bros want to deflect it to be, the conversation around this topic would be very different, and I would be enthusiastically defending the model trainers.
But that's not this conversation. These are companies that are trying to fold our permissively-license content into weights, close source it, and make themselves the only access point, all while pre-emptively perform regulatory capture with all the right DEI buzzwords so that the open source variants are sufficiently demonized as "alt-right" and "dangerous".
The thing that truly frightens me is that (even here on Hacker News) there is an increasing number of people that have fallen for the DEI FUD and are honestly cheering on the Sam Altmans of the world to control the flow of information.
