4 ms·
> A plethora of posts, articles and comments lament how the back breaking work which all of the new models were built upon is devalues all of that work by makin
by jstanley 3y ago
> A plethora of posts, articles and comments lament how the back breaking work which all of the new models were built upon is devalues all of that work by making it available to the masses with a simple chat prompt...
I don't think this is right. People publish stuff online because they want to share it with others! If it becomes easier for others to get it, I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
I'd rather my writing live on and in some tiny proportion influence the next stage of intelligent lifeform, than remain confined inside my own head to die when I do.
- sunshinerag 3y agoDo you expect your works to be attributed to you?
- jstanley 3y agoDoesn't make any difference.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoHow do you know it's your writing, and not the other 100+ people who had the same general ideas, without attribution?
- jstanley 3y agoI suppose if you are doing something that 100+ other people are doing, then you can't know. But there's one way to know for sure that it's not your ideas that live on: don't publish any.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoWord of mouth can be amazing even without the internet.
- collaborative 3y agoAs sad as it sounds, people contribute because they want Karma, validation, and to be challenged. This goes away with regurgitators
- brucethemoose2 3y agoThis was the early internet ideal. But the vast majority of content makers don't self host websites. They publish stuff on for-profit platforms, that (at the very least) need ad clicks to make ends meet, barring some rare and questionably sustainable ad-free exceptions like GitHub. If the content hosts can't make enough to even keep the lights on... then what? One answer is, unfortunately, information silos.