this has to do with writing ‘better’ code, which has proved impossible over and over again
I can't speak for C, as I don't follow it that much, but for C++, this is just not fair. It has been proven repeatedly that it can be done better, and much better. Each iteration has made so many things simpler, more productive, and also safer. Now, there are two problems with what I just said:
- That it has been done safer, that doesn't mean that everyone makes good use of it.
- That it has been done safer, doesn't mean that everything is fixable, and that it's on the same level of other, newer languages.
If that last part is what you mean, fine. But the way that you phrased (and that I quoted) is just not right.
At this point it’s literally easier to slowly port to a better language than it is to try and ‘fix’ C/C++.
Surely not for everything. Of course I see great value if I can stop depending on OpenSSL, and move to a better library written in a better language. Seriously looking forward for the day when I see dynamic libraries written in Rust in my package manager. But I'd like to see what's the plan for moving a large stack of C and C++ code, like a Linux distribution, to some "better language". I work everyday on such a stack (e.g. KDE Neon in my case, but applicable to any other typical distro with KDE or GNOME), and deploy to customers on such a stack (on Linux embedded like Yocto). Will the D-Bus daemon be written in Rust? Perhaps. Systemd? Maybe. NetworkManager, Udisks, etc.? Who knows. All the plethora of C and C++ applications that we use everyday? Doubtful.
"Theft" is never a technically accurate word when dealing with the so called "intellectual property", because the digital content being copied without authorization is legal in tons of cases, and because, come on, property is very explicitly exclusive. I cannot copy my house or my car, but I can make copies of my works for virtually 0 cost.
Using data for training ML models is even explicitly allowed in some jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), and is likely to be fair use everywhere else. LLMs are very transformative, and while they often can produce verbatim copies of fragments of copyrighted works, they don't store the whole works or significant pieces of them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like big companies making big money. I would not mind a law that would force models to be open sourced. But restricting them to train their models on public data by restricting fair use, it would harm them very little (they could pay something if they are making some profit), while small researchers or companies would never be able to compete, because they would not have the upfront costs, nor the economic engineering to disguise profits and pay less.