3 ms·
False. False. False. 1. People could forcibly seize and redistribute content already made in years 1980-2020. Even that would be better than slop. 2. People c
by barfbagginus 2y ago
False. False. False.
1. People could forcibly seize and redistribute content already made in years 1980-2020. Even that would be better than slop.
2. People could read only those - like scientists or open source and public domain authors - either funded by the state or otherwise willing to publish their works for free at high quality without the monetization slop text. The content exists, but monetized slop hides it.
3. Actually good AI can compress multiple slop articles into useful, non-sloppy content.
I'd be perfectly fine if the internet consists of just math textbooks and science papers, and actually good articles automatically distilled from slop.
It has the potential to give us what we need.
The problem is that slop hides all that!
- fullshark 2y agoSo the other alternative is piracy and only consuming public domain information?
- Zambyte 2y agoMaybe we should stop demonizing unauthorized sharing? People like to pretend nobody would make art in the absence of copyright, but it's easy to point them to millenia of contrary evidence.
- barfbagginus 2y agoThose are other alternatives, yes. That and mining the slop with automated tools. The problem with public domain stuff is that there is more than enough of it, but you cannot access public domain information because monetized slop has superseded it in the search results. I believe that automated AI engines will eventually help individuals find non-sloppy public domain articles, or assemble them from slop directly. But piracy is always a good option.