That's fine. You must understand that some people will not agree with you either, right? That's how it works. We don't even have to explain why, but it's a common courtesy.
Think this way: it's still a win-win no matter what. What Stallman is saying is that there would be no reason not to use ChatGPT if it was free (you are able to get a copy of the source and build it yourself) and not called AI. If you change those two things, then it's Stallman compliant.
That's totally doable. It would still be the exact same program you use today and helps you, and it would also now be immune to those two criticism points (whether it is intelligent or not and what's under the hood).
How would it be doable to make them open? I think this is a fundamentally different thing than LibreOffice vs Excel. These things are incredibly expensive to train and run, and doing it as a FOSS project for anyone to clone and run locally means they'd never make their investment back
Open models exist but they're not very useful compared to the latest. Hopefully that'll change but who knows
Maybe by the time they break even, it will be obvious how to earn money as an AI company. Today, it isn't, and it has nothing to do with being open or not.
Think this way: it's still a win-win no matter what. What Stallman is saying is that there would be no reason not to use ChatGPT if it was free (you are able to get a copy of the source and build it yourself) and not called AI. If you change those two things, then it's Stallman compliant.
That's totally doable. It would still be the exact same program you use today and helps you, and it would also now be immune to those two criticism points (whether it is intelligent or not and what's under the hood).