3 ms·
For me, the point is that the person who has put in the work then has some rights to decide how that information is accessed and re-used. I think it is a reaosn
by remus 1y ago
For me, the point is that the person who has put in the work then has some rights to decide how that information is accessed and re-used. I think it is a reaosnable position for someone to hold that they want individuals to be able to freely use some content they produced, but not for a company to use and profit from that same content. I think just saying "It's public now" lacks any nuance.
Ultimately these AI tools are useful because they have access to huge swaths of content, and the owners of these tools turn a lot of revenue by selling access to these tools. Ultimately I think the internet will end up a much worse place if companies don't respect clearly established wishes of people creating the content, because if companies stop respecting things like robots.txt then people will just hide stuff behind logins, paywalls and frustraing tools like cloudflare which use heuristics to block malicious traffic.
- crazygringo 1y ago> the person who has put in the work then has some rights to decide how that information is accessed and re-used You do, but you give up those rights when you make the work public. You think an author has any control over who their book gets lent to once somebody buys a copy? You think they get a share of profits when a CEO reads their book and they make a better decision? Of course not. What you're asking for is unreasonable. It's not workable. Knowledge can't be owned. Once you put it out there, it's out there. We have copyright and patent protections in specific circumstances, but that's all. You don't own facts, no matter how much hard work and research they took to figure out.