the underlying fundamental problem is that capitalism does not play nice with digital assets.
an AI model is a very valuable digital asset right now, so there's a covert war being fought over public access to this.
They're one of the small ways in which someone who actually does something gets a temporary monopoly on his little contribution, and it's something which is necessary to make the whole edifice function, because there is a need to ensure that people actually invent things and start companies, and if it were up to capital owners only, that wouldn't really happen. Ordinary people would have a very minimal incentive to use their intellect to discover genuinely novel things.
Public schooling is another, which is rather a socialist component, a communist component, a 'to each according to his need'.
But I suppose my view is consistent with a view that capitalism doesn't play nice with digital assets as well, but the present system does need these stabilising socialist and communist elements in order function and I think these socialist and communist components are genuine parts of the present system, just as capital ownership and wage labour are.
An AI model is literally constructed by explicitly disrespecting copyright. The idea that a company gets to turn around and demand respect for their AI model's copyright is patently absurd.
I don't believe, for example, that there's any intellectual property law that would let me yoink my intellectual property from you for any reason after you've bought and paid for it.
In other words: I think the capitalism discussion is kind of pointless here. Capitalism isn't what gives these companies power. It's the cloud. Mainframe computing 2.0.