5 ms·

> … their crawler kills your site and their LLM steals views by regurgitation answers based on your work How is that different from a human being reading my un

> … their crawler kills your site and their LLM steals views by regurgitation answers based on your work How is that different from a human being reading my underwater basket weaving site and starting his own, ‘stealing’ ‘my’ views? Or a thousand human beings out of the billions on Earth doing the same thing?

mystified5016 1y ago
Because that other person doesn't have the unilateral and un-appealable power to put their website in place of yours in search engines.
poincaredisk 1y ago
Honestly? I have a personal blog. It's free. I write because I want humans to read my work, not because I want to provide a free labor to AI companies. This argument doesn't work here.
mrweasel 1y ago
That person might actually contribute some of their own knowledge and experience. Also you probably put the information out there because you want to spread it, but once it's hidden behind an LLM chat prompt the community dies. You're correct that there's not really anything stopping a person from ripping you of, tweaking your work just enough that it's not a copy right violation. Unless that person themselves have a really good grasp of the topic and can contribute it will become clear that they are getting the content else where and the readers will end up there in the end. Many, not all obviously, will also provide attribution, something LLMs rarely do. Then you have the issue that the person publishing something on their own little server now has to deal with commercial companies just hammering their sites into the ground and they have to deal with that problem, just so someone can do an automated version of content theft? A lot of things people could potentially do are minor issues, until it's automated and commercialized.
no_wizard 1y ago
The automation aspect is enough to differentiate from a human and understand how they makes its impact 1000x worse
BobaFloutist 1y ago
The same way it's different of someone throws a bullet at you from their hand from 10 feat away versus propelling tens of them a second from a fully automatic rifle from 50 feet away. Sure, in either situation you could say "They trying to harm me using bullets," but one of them is much more likely to succeed, and we probably shouldn't treat the situations or costs to your well being as legally identical.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

mystified5016 1y ago

Because that other person doesn't have the unilateral and un-appealable power to put their website in place of yours in search engines.

poincaredisk 1y ago

Honestly? I have a personal blog. It's free. I write because I want humans to read my work, not because I want to provide a free labor to AI companies. This argument doesn't work here.

mrweasel 1y ago

That person might actually contribute some of their own knowledge and experience. Also you probably put the information out there because you want to spread it, but once it's hidden behind an LLM chat prompt the community dies. You're correct that there's not really anything stopping a person from ripping you of, tweaking your work just enough that it's not a copy right violation. Unless that person themselves have a really good grasp of the topic and can contribute it will become clear that they are getting the content else where and the readers will end up there in the end. Many, not all obviously, will also provide attribution, something LLMs rarely do. Then you have the issue that the person publishing something on their own little server now has to deal with commercial companies just hammering their sites into the ground and they have to deal with that problem, just so someone can do an automated version of content theft? A lot of things people could potentially do are minor issues, until it's automated and commercialized.

no_wizard 1y ago

The automation aspect is enough to differentiate from a human and understand how they makes its impact 1000x worse

BobaFloutist 1y ago

The same way it's different of someone throws a bullet at you from their hand from 10 feat away versus propelling tens of them a second from a fully automatic rifle from 50 feet away. Sure, in either situation you could say "They trying to harm me using bullets," but one of them is much more likely to succeed, and we probably shouldn't treat the situations or costs to your well being as legally identical.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]