4 ms·

A lot of people justifiably care because making that information is their livelihood. Your entitlement to the labor of others is gross.

by __loam 3y ago

selestify 3y ago
Then perhaps they should find other means of livelihood, instead of preventing the rest of the world from making full use of the information and technology available to it.
- dageshi 3y ago
  They will and less information will be put into places that are freely accessible. If it's put anywhere at all it'll be put behind login only/paywalled/unscrapable places that LLM's can't access.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Why would they suddenly paywall information if they weren't already? The way I see it, there are roughly three groups of information providers: 1. Those who do it pro bono - because they feel like its a worthwhile thing to do, or because they believe in by "pay it forward", or otherwise because they haven't even thought that what they share is worth trying to extract rent from. 2. Those who do it "for free", as a way to lure people to where they can expose them to ads, affiliate marketing, upsells, or other such schemes - making money by being predators using information as bait. 3. Those who just put up a paywall, being up front that they're selling information, not giving it away. (There's also a weird "in-between" group of publishers that are almost like 1., except they're being funded out of marketing budgets of companies that figure providing quality information is good advertising.) LLMs don't change anything for group #1. They may compete with group #3, but that's business as usual, not anything transformative. The group that's directly affected is #2, which also happens to be the group that produces all the garbage on the Internet, so I'm actually very happy to see them forced to find a more useful way of making money. Since group #2 produces "information" that's arguably negative knowledge on the net, it's likely to improve the amount of quality information you'll be able to find on-line.
    - __loam 3y ago
      Group #2 is the reason why there's so much information on the internet in the first place, especially free resources, for better or worse. I think it's pretty ignorant of you to say we can just discard one of the main ways people who create things on the internet get paid.
LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
Ideas are copied by reading or hearing them. You can't own your ideas now, unless by own you mean horde. The perpetual creators rights you want extended are already artificial and require a non-trivial amount of our GDP to enforce and they still stifle future creation in a lot of areas. Most people are paid for doing things every day, they don't get to create one thing and never work again. Expanding creators compensation laws is regressive and only helps a few elites survive job uncertainly, not the bulk of the people. We're better off limiting this sort of thing specifically to help everyone advance, share the knowledge.
- __loam 3y ago
  Your entitlement to the labor of others is gross.
  - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
    You're writing in English, which I doubt you came up with on your own, and I don't see you crediting the original speakers who developed your style or popularized the idioms you so casually use. How do you claim the right to learn from the works of others and then demand government regulation and forceful intervention to keep from having to share whatever paltry innovations you may develop?
    - __loam 3y ago
      Pretty dim view on humanity you have there.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  I think that is somewhat off topic. I don't see why rent seeking via IP laws should be bad while doing it via provision of AI wouldn't be.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    LLMs aren't just a mere database containing indexed copies of other peoples' IP. AI companies are charging you for access to a sophisticated automated reasoning system, that necessarily had to memorize half of the Internet in the process of becoming capable of (some approximation of) reasoning. (BTW. that you can even make a system this way is a huge breakthrough that's not being talked about enough.) But even if they were a mere database indexing copies of other peoples' IP, then - copyright issues notwithstanding - the de-bullshittifying of information retrieval process alone would be service worth paying a lot of money for.

A lot of people justifiably care because making that information is their livelihood. Your entitlement to the labor of others is gross.

by __loam 3y ago

A lot of people justifiably care because making that information is their livelihood. Your entitlement to the labor of others is gross.

selestify 3y ago

Then perhaps they should find other means of livelihood, instead of preventing the rest of the world from making full use of the information and technology available to it.

dageshi 3y ago
They will and less information will be put into places that are freely accessible. If it's put anywhere at all it'll be put behind login only/paywalled/unscrapable places that LLM's can't access.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Why would they suddenly paywall information if they weren't already? The way I see it, there are roughly three groups of information providers: 1. Those who do it pro bono - because they feel like its a worthwhile thing to do, or because they believe in by "pay it forward", or otherwise because they haven't even thought that what they share is worth trying to extract rent from. 2. Those who do it "for free", as a way to lure people to where they can expose them to ads, affiliate marketing, upsells, or other such schemes - making money by being predators using information as bait. 3. Those who just put up a paywall, being up front that they're selling information, not giving it away. (There's also a weird "in-between" group of publishers that are almost like 1., except they're being funded out of marketing budgets of companies that figure providing quality information is good advertising.) LLMs don't change anything for group #1. They may compete with group #3, but that's business as usual, not anything transformative. The group that's directly affected is #2, which also happens to be the group that produces all the garbage on the Internet, so I'm actually very happy to see them forced to find a more useful way of making money. Since group #2 produces "information" that's arguably negative knowledge on the net, it's likely to improve the amount of quality information you'll be able to find on-line.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Group #2 is the reason why there's so much information on the internet in the first place, especially free resources, for better or worse. I think it's pretty ignorant of you to say we can just discard one of the main ways people who create things on the internet get paid.

LawTalkingGuy 3y ago

Ideas are copied by reading or hearing them. You can't own your ideas now, unless by own you mean horde. The perpetual creators rights you want extended are already artificial and require a non-trivial amount of our GDP to enforce and they still stifle future creation in a lot of areas. Most people are paid for doing things every day, they don't get to create one thing and never work again. Expanding creators compensation laws is regressive and only helps a few elites survive job uncertainly, not the bulk of the people. We're better off limiting this sort of thing specifically to help everyone advance, share the knowledge.

__loam 3y ago
Your entitlement to the labor of others is gross.
- LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
  You're writing in English, which I doubt you came up with on your own, and I don't see you crediting the original speakers who developed your style or popularized the idioms you so casually use. How do you claim the right to learn from the works of others and then demand government regulation and forceful intervention to keep from having to share whatever paltry innovations you may develop?
  - __loam 3y ago
    Pretty dim view on humanity you have there.
RandomLensman 3y ago
I think that is somewhat off topic. I don't see why rent seeking via IP laws should be bad while doing it via provision of AI wouldn't be.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  LLMs aren't just a mere database containing indexed copies of other peoples' IP. AI companies are charging you for access to a sophisticated automated reasoning system, that necessarily had to memorize half of the Internet in the process of becoming capable of (some approximation of) reasoning. (BTW. that you can even make a system this way is a huge breakthrough that's not being talked about enough.) But even if they were a mere database indexing copies of other peoples' IP, then - copyright issues notwithstanding - the de-bullshittifying of information retrieval process alone would be service worth paying a lot of money for.