I reject the framing.

We can't have it both ways. If we want model makers to license content they will pick and chose a) the licensing model and b) their partners, in a way, that they think makes a superior model. This will always be an exclusive process.

I think we need to separate licensing and promotion. They have wildly different outcomes. Licensing is cool, it's part of the recipe. Promoting something above its legitimate weight is akin to collusion or buying up amazon reviews without earning them.

That's just pushes up the cost of licensing.

Not if the pie grows bigger.

We don't want it both ways - if that's the price we'd have to pay, at least I definitely don't want model makers to license content.

It's a question of axioms. LLMs are by definition "biased" in their weights; training is biasing. Now the stated goal of biasing these models is towards "truth", but we all know that's really biasing towards "looking like the training set" (tl;dr, no not verbatim). And who's to say the advertising industry-blessed training material is not the highest standard of truth? :)

> And who's to say the advertising industry-blessed training material is not the highest standard of truth? :)

Anyone who understands what perverse incentives are, that’s who. Or are you just playing the relativism card?