3 ms·

The people who can are leaving the internet and moving to using AI models. The people left are the ones who don't know how, or have a bone to pick with them. A

The people who can are leaving the internet and moving to using AI models. The people left are the ones who don't know how, or have a bone to pick with them. As an example I've not had to use google for a knowledge search in months now. Perplexity is much better, both for a summary of what I'm looking for, and for finding non-garbage links.

ubercow13 2y ago
So you use it to get links back to the internet. I expect the non-garbage links part won't last long, in the AI age.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  The part of the internet that was not-garbage was always the part run by volunteers. Screening the number of people who visit those sites preserves them since the volunteers don't need to interact with the self entitled masses. That clickfarms will die is no great loss.
  - Maken 2y ago
    I am seriously concerned about who will generate new content when everyone is interacting with the internet with AI crawlers.
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      The same people who wrote the original wikipedia articles before power mods locked them out.
lancesells 2y ago
> Perplexity is much better, both for a summary of what I'm looking for, and for finding non-garbage links. So AI can summarize the news for you. But how does it do it? It steals the news from actual people and organizations. We're all selfish beings who want to save time and/or effort but what do you think happens to Perplexity if it had no access to news organizations? What's the end outcome here?
- scotty79 2y ago
  By this logic if you are commenting on anything you haven't paid for you are stealing. Even if it's published openly on the Internet and you don't have to pay to access it. Did you pay for all the content you used to create your comment? If not how did you dare to write it and publish it? You've stolen the fraction of their income because after reading your comment I don't need to go read your source if I'm only interested in information you stolen and shared. What if you cause the demise of those sources with your (and your copycats) shameless theft? This is silly. Technology evolves all the time. Things die and they should die. Other arise in their place to fill the gap.
  - thomaslord 2y ago
    Serious question - what do you think will happen to AI that currently relies on human reporters if everyone switches to getting their news from AI and the reporters lose their jobs? Morals aside, AI will run into serious problems in 10-20 years when the world has rearranged itself around AI content. With less non-AI content available and no reliable way to differentiate AI vs non-AI content, there will no longer be a dataset to train against. Individual humans summarizing the news can reduce revenue for news organizations slightly, but AI summarizing every news article is a problem on a whole different scale. Basically the same as the difference between getting a mosquito bite and being stabbed in your carotid artery - both are just blood loss, but one is a minor annoyance and the other is fatal.
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      If news agencies still had reporters that would be a problem. They haven't since the 1980s. Everything that you say as some sort of doom and gloom prediction about the future _is the world we've lived in for the last 40 years_.
      - lancesells 2y ago
        This no reporter argument is so false but gets repeated often. If I only read internet articles from internet media companies you might have a little bit of a point, but actual newspapers have actual journalists. Some might be good and some might be bad, but they do employ people that do more than build an article around a tweet. Here's a random newspaper that you're saying doesn't have reporters: https://www.tampabay.com https://www.tampabay.com

ubercow13 2y ago

So you use it to get links back to the internet. I expect the non-garbage links part won't last long, in the AI age.

llm_trw 2y ago
The part of the internet that was not-garbage was always the part run by volunteers. Screening the number of people who visit those sites preserves them since the volunteers don't need to interact with the self entitled masses. That clickfarms will die is no great loss.
- Maken 2y ago
  I am seriously concerned about who will generate new content when everyone is interacting with the internet with AI crawlers.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    The same people who wrote the original wikipedia articles before power mods locked them out.

lancesells 2y ago

> Perplexity is much better, both for a summary of what I'm looking for, and for finding non-garbage links. So AI can summarize the news for you. But how does it do it? It steals the news from actual people and organizations. We're all selfish beings who want to save time and/or effort but what do you think happens to Perplexity if it had no access to news organizations? What's the end outcome here?

scotty79 2y ago
By this logic if you are commenting on anything you haven't paid for you are stealing. Even if it's published openly on the Internet and you don't have to pay to access it. Did you pay for all the content you used to create your comment? If not how did you dare to write it and publish it? You've stolen the fraction of their income because after reading your comment I don't need to go read your source if I'm only interested in information you stolen and shared. What if you cause the demise of those sources with your (and your copycats) shameless theft? This is silly. Technology evolves all the time. Things die and they should die. Other arise in their place to fill the gap.
- thomaslord 2y ago
  Serious question - what do you think will happen to AI that currently relies on human reporters if everyone switches to getting their news from AI and the reporters lose their jobs? Morals aside, AI will run into serious problems in 10-20 years when the world has rearranged itself around AI content. With less non-AI content available and no reliable way to differentiate AI vs non-AI content, there will no longer be a dataset to train against. Individual humans summarizing the news can reduce revenue for news organizations slightly, but AI summarizing every news article is a problem on a whole different scale. Basically the same as the difference between getting a mosquito bite and being stabbed in your carotid artery - both are just blood loss, but one is a minor annoyance and the other is fatal.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    If news agencies still had reporters that would be a problem. They haven't since the 1980s. Everything that you say as some sort of doom and gloom prediction about the future _is the world we've lived in for the last 40 years_.
    - lancesells 2y ago
      This no reporter argument is so false but gets repeated often. If I only read internet articles from internet media companies you might have a little bit of a point, but actual newspapers have actual journalists. Some might be good and some might be bad, but they do employ people that do more than build an article around a tweet. Here's a random newspaper that you're saying doesn't have reporters: https://www.tampabay.com https://www.tampabay.com