25 ms·

Reading is completely fine as this is author's intention. Using someone else's content in commercial purposes for free is absolutely not -- are you saying that

Reading is completely fine as this is author's intention. Using someone else's content in commercial purposes for free is absolutely not -- are you saying that we should ignore copyrights and all that since something is on the web? If I, as ordinary person, wanted to do that to a company, that company would call me a thief. So I think it's only fair to apply same logic to them.

OutOfHere 2y ago
Actually you are engaging in selective discrimination against artificial intelligence. If someone, a human, read your blog and offered a consulting service using the knowledge gained from your blog, it would be legal. You wouldn't discriminate against biological intelligence, so why discriminate against artificial intelligence? Speaking in the limiting sense, you are denying it a right to exist and to fend for itself. To help you in your decision, consider alternative forms of intelligence and existence such as those in simulation, those in a vat, and in any other possible substrates. How do you draw the line? Are humans the only ones that deserve to offer the consulting service?
- StrLght 2y ago
  Discrimination applies to people only. Anyway, I honestly find philosophical arguments irrelevant to the issue of a company using someone else's content without permission to do that -- it isn't about philosophy, it's about capitalism. It's not "artificial intelligence" reading this content. It's just a bunch of companies trying to scrap as much as possible without paying a dime for it to train LLMs. Sometimes they don't get away with that, see recent Reddit and OpenAI partnership [0] -- it's basically the same thing but with 2 huge corps, rather than a company and an individual. You and I are looking at the same issue from different angles. [0]: https://openai.com/index/openai-and-reddit-partnership/ https://openai.com/index/openai-and-reddit-partnership/

OutOfHere 2y ago

Actually you are engaging in selective discrimination against artificial intelligence. If someone, a human, read your blog and offered a consulting service using the knowledge gained from your blog, it would be legal. You wouldn't discriminate against biological intelligence, so why discriminate against artificial intelligence? Speaking in the limiting sense, you are denying it a right to exist and to fend for itself. To help you in your decision, consider alternative forms of intelligence and existence such as those in simulation, those in a vat, and in any other possible substrates. How do you draw the line? Are humans the only ones that deserve to offer the consulting service?

StrLght 2y ago
Discrimination applies to people only. Anyway, I honestly find philosophical arguments irrelevant to the issue of a company using someone else's content without permission to do that -- it isn't about philosophy, it's about capitalism. It's not "artificial intelligence" reading this content. It's just a bunch of companies trying to scrap as much as possible without paying a dime for it to train LLMs. Sometimes they don't get away with that, see recent Reddit and OpenAI partnership [0] -- it's basically the same thing but with 2 huge corps, rather than a company and an individual. You and I are looking at the same issue from different angles. [0]: https://openai.com/index/openai-and-reddit-partnership/ https://openai.com/index/openai-and-reddit-partnership/