4 ms·
People who have information they want to share? Programming library docs seem like an obvious choice...
by phren0logy 2y ago
People who have information they want to share? Programming library docs seem like an obvious choice...
- ray_v 2y agoOstensibly, everyone posting information on the open web want to share information -- either directly with people or indirectly via search engines _and_ the current crop of llms (which in my mind, serve the same purpose as search engines) I suppose the thing that people maybe don't agree with is the lack of attribution when llms regurgitate information back at the user. That, and the fact that these services are also overly aggressive when it comes to spidering your site
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- haswell 2y agoThat’s really my primary issue. Google indexing my content and directing traffic to my site is one thing. But unlike search indexing, there is no exchange of value when these LLMs are trained on my content. We all collectively get nothing for our work. It’s theft dressed up as business as usual. I’ll do whatever I reasonably can to avoid feeding the machine and hope some of the ongoing and inevitable legal fights will rein things in a bit.
- krmboya 2y agoAt least with the open source models we do get something back..
- haswell 2y agoThat’s debatable. The end result is still potentially making your own content obsolete/unnecessary and these “open weight” models are still trained without the permission of creators (there are no true open source models at this point). The people receiving the most value from these models are almost universally not the original content creators. The fact that I can use the model for my own purposes is potentially nice? But I’m not really interested in that and this doesn’t represent what I’d consider a reasonable exchange for using my work. It still drives people away from the source material.
- jph00 2y agoThis proposal isn’t really for training. It’s for end users who want to know what information to include when they’re using models.
- haswell 2y agoI get that. My point is that I’m uninterested in making it easier for LLM products to interact with my sites. I realize there may be products that may benefit from this. I was just agreeing with the sentiment that I want no part in it.
- 0x1064 2y agoThis is only true when a site's information is its only utility, such as for blogs. This is untrue when the information relates to a tool that would be consumed outside of the use of the model.
- haswell 2y agoI was primarily agreeing with the sentiment that making it easier for companies to consume my work is a hard sell. I realize not all sites fall into this category.
- autoexec 2y agoI like sharing information. Information wants to be free after all. Companies on the other hand want to charge people money to use their LLMs and associated AI products, so suddenly we've got a bunch of people profiting off of our content, potentially butchering it or hallucinating all over it in the process.
- ljm 2y agoThe only reason legit docs are hard to find is because they don’t have Google ads on them and they don’t do SEO. The solution to the problem isn’t AI. The solution is to break Google’s stranglehold on the web by regulating it. The solution is to get government up to speed by making it contemporary, so it can understand and respond to current issues. Not leaving it up to people who had their time several decades ago and can’t let go.
- knowaveragejoe 2y agoMaybe I don't work with niche enough software, but I rarely found docs particularly hard to find. For me, one of the real benefits of using an LLM is in making it easier to find where in the docs to look, or distilling exhaustive docs into common use cases. It's akin to the 'tldr' tool for man pages.
- Nullabillity 2y agoIf you want to share information then you presumably don't want it to be regurgitated to be subtly wrong. The only use case I see here would be if it can be poisoned to reject queries about the area and direct readers to the source instead.