I looked at the repo and it looks like that is guy is spreading misinfo.

That’s true, but OP is calling it a decompilation in the text portion of the post, which is incorrect.

The Adobe suite thing you linked in your post isn’t a decompilation, it’s a clean-room reimplementation.

It’s sad to see lemmy flooded with articles pushing their narrative. So many people on here who don’t know any better are inadvertently helping to raise these companies’ valuations while at the same time making it easier for them to justify the regulatory capture of open source AI they’ve been pushing for.

Remember: every time you repeat a story about how awfully, terribly dangerous their products are, you help them raise more investment capital, which is a key input for their business (hooking up statistical engines to money-furnaces):

It would be really cool if they didn’t do that this time.

There’s also an option to bring your own LLM, with fields for model name, endpoint, and API token available for entry when the manual option is enabled. However, the page itself warns local models may not work correctly.

It looks like there’s an option for people to self-host too. You won’t have to send your history to someone else’s computer.

They clearly only read the headline If they’re talking about the ruling that came out this week, that whole thing was about trying to give an AI authorship of a work generated solely by a machine and having the copyright go to the owner of the machine through the work-for-hire doctrine. So an AI itself can’t be authors or hold a copyright, but humans using them can still be copyright holders of any qualifying works.

Yeah, this headline is trying to make it seem like training on copyrighted material is or should be wrong.