56
Are there any llms made from 100% public domain / permissively licensed training data?
(piefed.blahaj.zone)
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2026
56 points (96.7% liked)
No Stupid Questions
50348 readers
648 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My apologies, it was an attempt at humor which I can see backfired. ๐ฌ
Now as for the case selection, I personally find the regional case interesting because it appears to show the possibility of courts seeing this differently. There are more out there than the ones I quoted.
And I think there might be a possible misunderstanding, sorry about my lack of clarity: I wasn't trying to prove that this is for sure a copyright infringement, since I'm not a lawyer anyway. But I think it's pretty obvious NVidia doesn't care if it turns out to be one - that's at least my personal opinion.
The regional case isnt interesting because its regional. Regional courts get it wrong all the time, only for it to be overturned by higher courts. There is also the possibility that this court was known to be pro-authors or anti-big tech, and the case was brought there for that specific reason.
If it gets held up on appeal then that is much more interesting, but for now, its basically one judges opinion.
In my uninformed opinion, it casts quite some doubt on the narrative that it's absurd that courts will somehow decide against AI, or that the use will "clearly" not ever turn out to be a fundamental problem later. And again, there are multiple cases where this happened, it's not just one judge.
But I'm not a legal expert so keep that in mind and don't trust me. (However, I'm making an educated guess that perhaps you aren't one either. My apologies if that is incorrect.)
Oracle v Google went back and forth for the better part of a decade, with rulings on both sides. This is much the same, time will tell.