3 ms·
Really? Seems like it's not so different conceptually to search engines. They also make money by indexing "training data" of a sort. But the open web trundles o
by mike_hearn 3y ago
Really? Seems like it's not so different conceptually to search engines. They also make money by indexing "training data" of a sort. But the open web trundles on regardless, because the search engines found ways to cut the content producers in on it. I see no reason why that can't be the case here too, with AI companies training their models to act more like search engines when data comes from certain sources - i.e. they'll point you in the right direction but not directly answer you. That will suck for the AI users, but, for many questions the right answer will be available in open or bulk licensable training sets anyway. For example you can get legal access to nearly all books by doing deals with publishers, as Google Books has demonstrated, you can get access to map data by generating it yourself or doing deals with digital map companies etc.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago>Really? Seems like it's not so different conceptually to search engines. They also make money by indexing "training data" of a sort. OK, so if a writer X has a blog to put up samples of their work to drive people to buy books and to get writing assignments and someone uses ChatGPT to write something in the style of X - this naively seems like a hit on that author's ability to sell their skills. And I don't think it is fixable by making the AI act more like a search engine.
- mike_hearn 3y agoSeems like a rerun of the argument over snippets, or the "answer onebox" as Google used to call it where the info you need is directly inlined in the SERP rather than being behind a link.
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoit is exactly a rerun of that argument, except that the UX of AI is different. Basically AI is structured to make every result an answer onebox whereas in search this only happens sometimes.
- rurp 3y agoYes I would say that is very similar. Many sites saw their revenue crater, based on data they themselves had created.
- ben_w 3y ago> this naively seems like a hit on that author's ability to sell their skills If the AI is good, then the author's economic outlook is bad regardless of style. Regardless of if the AI is or isn't good, then I can still see it being brand damaging, but my gut feeling (IANAL) is that this is more of a trademark issue than a copyright issue, as it's passing off as something it isn't.
- josephg 3y agoIt would work both ways. I could also imagine someone asking: “what books should I read to learn about X?” And the LLM could drive sales toward that author’s books. It’s not clear to me that having their content “unindexed” is good for authors. It’s probably good and bad at the same time.
- twelve40 3y agoyes indeed, search engines settled that problem a long time ago in a civilized way. The more of these lawsuits, the harder the wild west of "training" will have to search for an acceptable solution to what is currently web-scale theft of data.