3 ms·

I really don't understand why sites would do this. To each their own, but it currently lowers my opinion of the site. I was disappointed to see NPR and Ars on t

I really don't understand why sites would do this. To each their own, but it currently lowers my opinion of the site. I was disappointed to see NPR and Ars on the list.

JohnFen 3y ago
Why does it lower your opinion of such sites?
- kenmacd 3y ago
  That's a good question... I suppose it seems to me like they're trying to keep useful information locked down. Even though this bot isn't 'public', it's still feels a bit like they're an author saying they don't want their book in a library. Actually it's even worse than that because they want to pick and choose who is allowed to read their words. I guess another way I see it is like the site has put a banner at the top saying I can read their content, but can't use anything I learn from it, and can't tell you or anyone else about anything I've read. I get that in this case the 'me' is an algorithm and not a person, but does that really matter? If I read a lot of info on welding and then offer a 'learn to weld' class, how much does that differ from what the openai algorithm is doing. (And if it is public, are these same sites going to welcome the bots? I doubt it) It also seems rather reactive and not well thought out. To include a quote from an Ars article (which gptbot can't read): > As a thought experiment, imagine an online business declaring that it didn't want its website indexed by Google in the year 2002—a self-defeating move when that was the most popular on-ramp for finding information online.[1] Or a couple quote Stephen King on another site that gptbot can't read[2]: > I have said in one of my few forays into nonfiction (On Writing) that you can’t learn to write unless you’re a reader, and unless you read a lot. > Would I forbid the teaching (if that is the word) of my stories to computers? Not even if I could. I might as well be King Canute, forbidding the tide to come in. Or a Luddite trying to stop industrial progress by hammering a steam loom to pieces. As I said, to each their own. I just would have expected a site like NPR, that lists it's mission as "to create a more informed public", to not take actions that work directly against that goal. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/openai-details-how-to-keep-chatgpt-from-gobbling-up-website-data/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/opena... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/08/stephen-king-books-ai-writing/675088/ https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/08/stephen-ki...
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Very interesting. It would never have occurred to me that anyone would equate "I don't want this to train AI" with "I don't want people to learn this". Thank you for explaining.

I really don't understand why sites would do this. To each their own, but it currently lowers my opinion of the site. I was disappointed to see NPR and Ars on the list.

JohnFen 3y ago

Why does it lower your opinion of such sites?

kenmacd 3y ago
That's a good question... I suppose it seems to me like they're trying to keep useful information locked down. Even though this bot isn't 'public', it's still feels a bit like they're an author saying they don't want their book in a library. Actually it's even worse than that because they want to pick and choose who is allowed to read their words. I guess another way I see it is like the site has put a banner at the top saying I can read their content, but can't use anything I learn from it, and can't tell you or anyone else about anything I've read. I get that in this case the 'me' is an algorithm and not a person, but does that really matter? If I read a lot of info on welding and then offer a 'learn to weld' class, how much does that differ from what the openai algorithm is doing. (And if it is public, are these same sites going to welcome the bots? I doubt it) It also seems rather reactive and not well thought out. To include a quote from an Ars article (which gptbot can't read): > As a thought experiment, imagine an online business declaring that it didn't want its website indexed by Google in the year 2002—a self-defeating move when that was the most popular on-ramp for finding information online.[1] Or a couple quote Stephen King on another site that gptbot can't read[2]: > I have said in one of my few forays into nonfiction (On Writing) that you can’t learn to write unless you’re a reader, and unless you read a lot. > Would I forbid the teaching (if that is the word) of my stories to computers? Not even if I could. I might as well be King Canute, forbidding the tide to come in. Or a Luddite trying to stop industrial progress by hammering a steam loom to pieces. As I said, to each their own. I just would have expected a site like NPR, that lists it's mission as "to create a more informed public", to not take actions that work directly against that goal. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/openai-details-how-to-keep-chatgpt-from-gobbling-up-website-data/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/opena... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/08/stephen-king-books-ai-writing/675088/ https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/08/stephen-ki...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Very interesting. It would never have occurred to me that anyone would equate "I don't want this to train AI" with "I don't want people to learn this". Thank you for explaining.