3 ms·
It is; however, I doubt most contributors would put in effort if they knew the main purpose of what they were typing out and researching would be grist for a fo
by trollbridge 2y ago
It is; however, I doubt most contributors would put in effort if they knew the main purpose of what they were typing out and researching would be grist for a for-profit (let's not kid ourselves) AI business.
- zahlman 2y agoThat's indeed a large part of why I stopped writing new questions and answers. But I do still edit, and redirect old duplicates to a better version of the question, etc. - because high quality information deserves to be highlighted, even if it may "fall into the wrong hands".
- shagie 2y agoIt's always been typed out to further a for profit business. The AI part is new. Stack Overflow has never been shy about the fact that they're trying to make money. If the AI changes things, then one should ask why the individual was contributing when Stack Overflow Inc was the business reaping the financial rewards of community contributions.
- eru 2y agoYes. And even Wikipedia was always open to be used for-profit.
- int_19h 2y agoThe contributions are under CC-BY-SA, so while the company can legitimately profit from it, the ShareAlike part requires that derivative works are also distributed under the same license. This is the part that LLMs infringe upon, in my opinion. So, all I want is for OpenAI, Meta etc to release their model weights under CC-BY-SA, and then we're square.
- eru 2y agoWell, that's unless their derivative works fall under fair use?
- int_19h 2y agoI'm sure that's the legislation they will lobby through if the courts don't play ball. But from a purely ethical standpoint I find it repugnant when people like Sam Altman take something that is offered for free specifically with the intent that it benefits the commons, and make a commercial enterprise out of it.