4 ms·

This doesn't appear consistent with other visitors to your website. If a cafe owner uses info on your site to improve their baking, should they also be required

by nomilk 3y ago

This doesn't appear consistent with other visitors to your website. If a cafe owner uses info on your site to improve their baking, should they also be required to share their revenue with you?

tchaffee 3y ago
Are you considering ad revenue?
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  That already puts the website in the sleazy category. "I mixed my helpful information with mind poison" isn't a strong position to argue fair play from.
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    You missed the more general point that if folks do have a way of making revenue from their content then stealing their content would have a negative impact. Maybe someone has amazing content and offers classes. You might be able to think of other possibilities.
gfedtbyby 3y ago
If the cafe is a multi-billion corporation that can only exist because it can leech of content created by millions of other people without providing anything at all to them in return (and I'm not necessarily talking about financial compensation) then yeah.. maybe you should.
- dron57 3y ago
  So Starbucks? Should they be sharing all their revenue with whoever invented all those Italian coffee drinks?
  - gfedtbyby 3y ago
    Starbucks business model is not entirely (or at all) reliant on the availability of new coffee drink recipes which can only be provided by third parties. So no, I wouldn't say so.
edgyquant 3y ago
I see no point in engaging with this argument. ChatGPT is not a human. I, nor anyone else, should have to explain to you why that makes all the difference here.
- thenonsequitur 3y ago
  If you don't want to engage in the argument, that's on you. I don't think ChatGPT not being a human makes any difference and I think the onus is on you to explain why it should.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    No the onus is not on the person thinking laws written for humans apply only to humans. That doesn’t make any sense.
    - thenonsequitur 3y ago
      Now you're shifting the goal posts. Please re-read the comments/replies up to this point and you'll see no mention of laws anywhere. That's not what the discussion is about. It's about whether AI consumers of publicly accessible content should be required to pay for that content when human consumers should not.

by nomilk 3y ago

This doesn't appear consistent with other visitors to your website. If a cafe owner uses info on your site to improve their baking, should they also be required to share their revenue with you?

tchaffee 3y ago

Are you considering ad revenue?

TeMPOraL 3y ago
That already puts the website in the sleazy category. "I mixed my helpful information with mind poison" isn't a strong position to argue fair play from.
- tchaffee 3y ago
  You missed the more general point that if folks do have a way of making revenue from their content then stealing their content would have a negative impact. Maybe someone has amazing content and offers classes. You might be able to think of other possibilities.

gfedtbyby 3y ago

If the cafe is a multi-billion corporation that can only exist because it can leech of content created by millions of other people without providing anything at all to them in return (and I'm not necessarily talking about financial compensation) then yeah.. maybe you should.

dron57 3y ago
So Starbucks? Should they be sharing all their revenue with whoever invented all those Italian coffee drinks?
- gfedtbyby 3y ago
  Starbucks business model is not entirely (or at all) reliant on the availability of new coffee drink recipes which can only be provided by third parties. So no, I wouldn't say so.

edgyquant 3y ago

I see no point in engaging with this argument. ChatGPT is not a human. I, nor anyone else, should have to explain to you why that makes all the difference here.

thenonsequitur 3y ago
If you don't want to engage in the argument, that's on you. I don't think ChatGPT not being a human makes any difference and I think the onus is on you to explain why it should.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  No the onus is not on the person thinking laws written for humans apply only to humans. That doesn’t make any sense.
  - thenonsequitur 3y ago
    Now you're shifting the goal posts. Please re-read the comments/replies up to this point and you'll see no mention of laws anywhere. That's not what the discussion is about. It's about whether AI consumers of publicly accessible content should be required to pay for that content when human consumers should not.