4 ms·

> I think there is a real content dilemma here at work It's not really a dilemma. This is exactly what copyright serves to protect authors from. Perplexity co

> I think there is a real content dilemma here at work It's not really a dilemma. This is exactly what copyright serves to protect authors from. Perplexity copied the content, and in doing so directly competes with the original work, destroying it's market value and driving the original author out of business. Literally what copyright was invented to prevent. It's the exact same situation as journalists going after Google & social media embeds of articles, which these sites propagandized as "prohibiting hyperlinking", but the issue has been the embedded (summary of the) content. Which people don't click through, and this is the entire point of those features for platforms like Facebook; Keeping users on facebook and not leaving. This is why quite a few jurisdictions agreed with the journalists and moved to institute restrictions on such embedding. By all practical considerations, perplexity is doing the exact same thing and trying to deflect with "we used an AI to paraphrase". > The incentives of Google and website owners were more or less aligned. The key difference here is that linking is and always has been fine. Google's Book search feature is fair use because the purpose is to send you to the book you searched for, not substitute the book. Google's current AI summary feature is effectively the same as Perplexity. People don't click through to the original site, the original site doesn't get ad impressions or other revenue, and is driven out of business. > What will happen if: What will happen is what already is happening: Journalists are driven out of business, replaced by AI slop. And then what? AI needs humans creating original content, especially for things like journalism and fact-finding. It'd be an eternal AI winter, all LLMs doomed to be stuck in 2025. It's in every AI developer's best interest to halt the likes of Perplexity immediately before they irreparably damage the field of AI.

skeledrew 2y ago
I see no competition. I use Perplexity regularly to give me summaries of articles or to do preliminary research. If I like what I'm seeing, then I go to the source. If a source chooses to block their content because they don't want it to be accessed by AI bots then they reduce even further the chance of me - and increasingly more persons - touching their site at all.
- __loam 2y ago
  "Let us steal your content or you won't get any traffic" sounds extortionate
  - skeledrew 2y ago
    It is what it is. AI is increasingly being used to make lives easier. Those who choose to isolate from AI choose to isolate from the many using it.
    - __loam 2y ago
      We're burning long term value and the open web for shitty chat bots.
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago
  You can say that, it doesn't matter. The statistics show that these tools reduce views. And really, "I'm going to replace my entire news intake with the AI slop even if it's entirely hallucinated lies or propaganda" is perhaps not something you ought to say out loud.
  - skeledrew 2y ago
    Reality is view stats, etc don't matter to most users. All we want is to read/research in peace. You're missing something crucial. Yes, there may be hallucinations, but that's why there's preference for AI that provides citations; they can be easily checked. And also, in my experience, the summaries are usually decent; the sources which tend to yield pretty broken summaries also tend to intersperse unrelated material (ads, previews to other things, etc) in the content, or they're doing wild transforms with JS for example to create unnecessary eye candy. And coincidentally, I'd rather avoid those sources where possible, so it becomes an even greater win for me as user to have AI prefilter said content. Thus the sources getting those precious views in the end become the ones that respect their users' time and aversion to distractions.
baxtr 2y ago
>And then what? AI needs humans creating original content, especially for things like journalism and fact-finding. It'd be an eternal AI winter, all LLMs doomed to be stuck in 2025. It's in every AI developer's best interest to halt the likes of Perplexity immediately before they irreparably damage the field of AI. That’s exactly the problem and we all know that it will happen.

skeledrew 2y ago

I see no competition. I use Perplexity regularly to give me summaries of articles or to do preliminary research. If I like what I'm seeing, then I go to the source. If a source chooses to block their content because they don't want it to be accessed by AI bots then they reduce even further the chance of me - and increasingly more persons - touching their site at all.

__loam 2y ago
"Let us steal your content or you won't get any traffic" sounds extortionate
- skeledrew 2y ago
  It is what it is. AI is increasingly being used to make lives easier. Those who choose to isolate from AI choose to isolate from the many using it.
  - __loam 2y ago
    We're burning long term value and the open web for shitty chat bots.
ADeerAppeared 2y ago
You can say that, it doesn't matter. The statistics show that these tools reduce views. And really, "I'm going to replace my entire news intake with the AI slop even if it's entirely hallucinated lies or propaganda" is perhaps not something you ought to say out loud.
- skeledrew 2y ago
  Reality is view stats, etc don't matter to most users. All we want is to read/research in peace. You're missing something crucial. Yes, there may be hallucinations, but that's why there's preference for AI that provides citations; they can be easily checked. And also, in my experience, the summaries are usually decent; the sources which tend to yield pretty broken summaries also tend to intersperse unrelated material (ads, previews to other things, etc) in the content, or they're doing wild transforms with JS for example to create unnecessary eye candy. And coincidentally, I'd rather avoid those sources where possible, so it becomes an even greater win for me as user to have AI prefilter said content. Thus the sources getting those precious views in the end become the ones that respect their users' time and aversion to distractions.

baxtr 2y ago

>And then what? AI needs humans creating original content, especially for things like journalism and fact-finding. It'd be an eternal AI winter, all LLMs doomed to be stuck in 2025. It's in every AI developer's best interest to halt the likes of Perplexity immediately before they irreparably damage the field of AI. That’s exactly the problem and we all know that it will happen.