7 ms·

> That said ... putting part of your soul into machine format so you can put it on on the big shared machine using your personal machine and expecting that only

> That said ... putting part of your soul into machine format so you can put it on on the big shared machine using your personal machine and expecting that only other really truly quintessentially proper personal machines receive it and those soulless other machines don't ... is strange. That's a mischaracterization of most people want. When I put out a bowl of candy for Halloween I'm fine with EVERYONE taking some candy. But these companies are the equivalent of the asshole that dumps the whole bowl into their bag.

lblume 1y ago
> these companies are the equivalent of the asshole that dumps the whole bowl into their bag In most cases, they aren't? You can still access a website that is being crawled for the purpose of training LLMs. Sure, DOS exists, but seems to not be as much of a problem as to cause widespread outage of websites.
- rangerelf 1y ago
  A better analogy is that LLM crawlers are candy store workers going through the houses grabbing free candy and then selling it in their own shop. Scalpers. Knowledge scalpers.
  - horsawlarway 1y ago
    Except nothing is actually taken. It's copied. If your goal in publishing the site is to drive eyeballs to it for ad revenue... then you probably care. If your goal in publishing the site is just to let people know a thing you found or learned... that goal is still getting accomplished. For me... I'm not in it for the fame or money, I'm fine with it.
    - CJefferson 1y ago
      It's absolutely fine for you to be fine with it. What is nonsense is how copyright laws have been so strict, and suddenly AI companies can just ignore everyone's wishes.
      - horsawlarway 1y ago
        Hey - no argument here. I don't think the concept of copyright itself is fundamentally immoral... but it's pretty clearly a moral hazard, and the current implementation is both terrible at supporting independent artists, and a beat stick for already wealthy corporations and publishers to use to continue shitting on independent creators. So sure - I agree that watching the complete disregard for copyright is galling in its hypocrisy, but the problem is modern copyright, IMO. ...and maybe also capitalism in general and wealth inequality at large - but that's a broader, complicated, discussion.
    - allturtles 1y ago
      I think you're missing a middle ground, of people who want to let people know a thing they found or learned, and want to get credit for it. Among other things, this motivation has been the basis for pretty much the entire scientific enterprise since it started: > But that which will excite the greatest astonishment by far, and which indeed especially moved me to call the attention of all astronomers and philosophers, is this, namely, that I have discovered four planets, neither known nor observed by any one of the astronomers before my time, which have their orbits round a certain bright star, one of those previously known, like Venus and Mercury round the Sun, and are sometimes in front of it, sometimes behind it, though they never depart from it beyond certain limits. [0] [0]: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46036/pg46036-images.html https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46036/pg46036-images.ht...
    - b112 1y ago
      It's a very simple metric. They had nothing of value, no product, no marketable thing. Then they scanned your site. They had to, along with others. And in scanning your site, they scanned the results of your work, effort, and cost. Now they have a product. I need to be clear here, if that site has no value, why do they want it? Understand, these aren't private citizens. A private citizen might print out a recipe, who cares? They might even share that with friends. OK. But if they take it, then package it, then make money? That is different. In my country, copyright doesn't really punish a person. No one gets hit for copying movies even. It does punish someone, for example, copying and then reselling that work though. This sort of thing should depend on who's doing it. Their motive. When search engines were operating an index, nothing was lost. In fact, it was a mutually symbiotic relationship. I guess what we should really ask, is why on Earth should anyone produce anything, if the end result is not one sees it? And instead, they just read a summary from an AI? No more website, no new data, means no new AI knowledge too.
      - horsawlarway 1y ago
        I guess I don't derive my personal value from the esteem of others. And I don't mean that as an insult, because I get that different people do things for different reasons, and we all get our dopamine hits in different ways. I just think that if the only reason you choose to do something is because you think it's going to get attention on the internet... Then you probably shouldn't be doing that thing in the first place. I produce things because I enjoy producing them. I share them with my friends and family (both in person and online). That's plenty. Historically... that's the norm. > I guess what we should really ask, is why on Earth should anyone produce anything, if the end result is not one sees it? This is a really rather disturbing view of the world. Do things for you. I make things because I see it. My family sees it. My friends see it. I grow roses for me and my neighbors - not for some random internet credit. I plant trees so my kids can sit under them - not for some random internet credit.
        b112 1y ago
        Context. Note that we're having a discussion about people putting up websites, and being upset about AI snarfing that content. > I guess what we should really ask, is why on Earth should anyone produce anything, if the end result is not one sees it? > > And instead, they just read a summary from an AI? The above is referring to that context. To people wanting others to see things, and that after all is what this whole website's, this person's concerns are about. So now that this is reiterated, in the context of someone wanting to show things to the world, why would they produce -- if their goal is lost? This doesn't mean they don't do things privately for their friends and family. This isn't a binary, 0/1 solution. Just because you have a website for "all those other people" to see, doesn't mean you don't share things between your friends and family. So what you seem to dislike, is that anyone does it at all. Because again, people writing for eyeballs at large, doesn't mean they aren't separately for their friends or family. It seems to me that you're also creating a schism between "family / friends" and "all those other people". Naturally you care for those close to you, but "those other people" are people too. And some people just see people as... people. People to share things with. Yet you seem to be making that a nasty, dirty thing.
    - lelanthran 1y ago
      > If your goal in publishing the site is just to let people know a thing you found or learned... that goal is still getting accomplished. I like how you posted so many times in this thread, with the assertion that that is the goal of people giving away stuff for free. Your responses in this thread are almost textbook example of Strawman Argument; you could not do a better Strawman Argument even if you tried!
reactordev 1y ago
More like when the project kids show up in the millionaire neighborhood because they know they’ll get full size candy bars. It’s not that there’s none for the others. It’s that there was this unspoken agreement, reinforced by the last 20 years, that website content is protected speech, protected intellectual property, and is copyrightable to its owner/author. Now, that trust and good faith is broken.
- account42 1y ago
  A yes of course, the poor poor AI companies getting scraps from the greedy independent website operators.
horsawlarway 1y ago
I really don't think this holds. It's vanishingly rare to end up in a spot where your site is getting enough LLM driven traffic for you to really notice (and I'm not talking out my ass - I host several sites from personal hardware running in my basement). Bots are a thing. Bots have been a thing and will continue to be a thing. They mostly aren't worth worrying about, and at least for now you can throw PoW in front of your site if you are suddenly getting enough traffic from them to care. In the mean time... Your bowl of candy is still there. Still full of your candy for real people to read. That's the fun of digital goods... They aren't "exhaustible" like your candy bowl. No LLM is dumping your whole bowl (they can't). At most - they're just making the line to access it longer.
- igloopan 1y ago
  I think you're missing the context that is the article. The candy in this case is the people who may or may not go to read your e.g. ramen recipe. The real problem, as I see it, is that over time, as LLMs absorb the information covered by that recipe, fewer people will actually look at the search results since the AI summary tells them how to make a good-enough bowl of ramen. The amount of ramen enjoyers is zero-sum. Your recipe will, of course, stay up and accessible to real people but LLMs take away impressions that could have been yours. In regards to this metaphor, they take your candy and put it in their own bowl.
  - jasonvorhe 1y ago
    That's also trained behavior due to SEO infested recipe sites filled with advertorials, referral links to expensive kitchen equipment, long form texts about the recipe with the recipe hidden somewhere below that. Same goes for other stuff that can be easily propped up with lengthy text stuffed with just the right terms to spam search indexes with. LLMs are just readability on speed, with the downsides of drugs.
  - horsawlarway 1y ago
    So what is the goal behind gathering those impressions? Why do you take this as a problem? And I'm not being glib here - those are genuine questions. If the goal is to share a good ramen recipe... are you not still achieving that?
pas 1y ago
What people want is critically important, yet they are heart wrenchingly unaware how (web1.0) technology cannot give it to them. And on a fundamental level - ie. as an information security problem - preventing copying by bots is logically incoherent with being open and free in the usual way. The way to make progress on this problem is to realize this, and then let people either find alternatives to publishing on websites, start a movement to stop machine learning, campaign for accountable AI, work on getting political power and getting compensation from these companies, etc.

lblume 1y ago

> these companies are the equivalent of the asshole that dumps the whole bowl into their bag In most cases, they aren't? You can still access a website that is being crawled for the purpose of training LLMs. Sure, DOS exists, but seems to not be as much of a problem as to cause widespread outage of websites.

rangerelf 1y ago
A better analogy is that LLM crawlers are candy store workers going through the houses grabbing free candy and then selling it in their own shop. Scalpers. Knowledge scalpers.
- horsawlarway 1y ago
  Except nothing is actually taken. It's copied. If your goal in publishing the site is to drive eyeballs to it for ad revenue... then you probably care. If your goal in publishing the site is just to let people know a thing you found or learned... that goal is still getting accomplished. For me... I'm not in it for the fame or money, I'm fine with it.
  - CJefferson 1y ago
    It's absolutely fine for you to be fine with it. What is nonsense is how copyright laws have been so strict, and suddenly AI companies can just ignore everyone's wishes.
    - horsawlarway 1y ago
      Hey - no argument here. I don't think the concept of copyright itself is fundamentally immoral... but it's pretty clearly a moral hazard, and the current implementation is both terrible at supporting independent artists, and a beat stick for already wealthy corporations and publishers to use to continue shitting on independent creators. So sure - I agree that watching the complete disregard for copyright is galling in its hypocrisy, but the problem is modern copyright, IMO. ...and maybe also capitalism in general and wealth inequality at large - but that's a broader, complicated, discussion.
  - allturtles 1y ago
    I think you're missing a middle ground, of people who want to let people know a thing they found or learned, and want to get credit for it. Among other things, this motivation has been the basis for pretty much the entire scientific enterprise since it started: > But that which will excite the greatest astonishment by far, and which indeed especially moved me to call the attention of all astronomers and philosophers, is this, namely, that I have discovered four planets, neither known nor observed by any one of the astronomers before my time, which have their orbits round a certain bright star, one of those previously known, like Venus and Mercury round the Sun, and are sometimes in front of it, sometimes behind it, though they never depart from it beyond certain limits. [0] [0]: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46036/pg46036-images.html https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46036/pg46036-images.ht...
  - b112 1y ago
    It's a very simple metric. They had nothing of value, no product, no marketable thing. Then they scanned your site. They had to, along with others. And in scanning your site, they scanned the results of your work, effort, and cost. Now they have a product. I need to be clear here, if that site has no value, why do they want it? Understand, these aren't private citizens. A private citizen might print out a recipe, who cares? They might even share that with friends. OK. But if they take it, then package it, then make money? That is different. In my country, copyright doesn't really punish a person. No one gets hit for copying movies even. It does punish someone, for example, copying and then reselling that work though. This sort of thing should depend on who's doing it. Their motive. When search engines were operating an index, nothing was lost. In fact, it was a mutually symbiotic relationship. I guess what we should really ask, is why on Earth should anyone produce anything, if the end result is not one sees it? And instead, they just read a summary from an AI? No more website, no new data, means no new AI knowledge too.
    - horsawlarway 1y ago
      I guess I don't derive my personal value from the esteem of others. And I don't mean that as an insult, because I get that different people do things for different reasons, and we all get our dopamine hits in different ways. I just think that if the only reason you choose to do something is because you think it's going to get attention on the internet... Then you probably shouldn't be doing that thing in the first place. I produce things because I enjoy producing them. I share them with my friends and family (both in person and online). That's plenty. Historically... that's the norm. > I guess what we should really ask, is why on Earth should anyone produce anything, if the end result is not one sees it? This is a really rather disturbing view of the world. Do things for you. I make things because I see it. My family sees it. My friends see it. I grow roses for me and my neighbors - not for some random internet credit. I plant trees so my kids can sit under them - not for some random internet credit.
      - b112 1y ago
        Context. Note that we're having a discussion about people putting up websites, and being upset about AI snarfing that content. > I guess what we should really ask, is why on Earth should anyone produce anything, if the end result is not one sees it? > > And instead, they just read a summary from an AI? The above is referring to that context. To people wanting others to see things, and that after all is what this whole website's, this person's concerns are about. So now that this is reiterated, in the context of someone wanting to show things to the world, why would they produce -- if their goal is lost? This doesn't mean they don't do things privately for their friends and family. This isn't a binary, 0/1 solution. Just because you have a website for "all those other people" to see, doesn't mean you don't share things between your friends and family. So what you seem to dislike, is that anyone does it at all. Because again, people writing for eyeballs at large, doesn't mean they aren't separately for their friends or family. It seems to me that you're also creating a schism between "family / friends" and "all those other people". Naturally you care for those close to you, but "those other people" are people too. And some people just see people as... people. People to share things with. Yet you seem to be making that a nasty, dirty thing.
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    > If your goal in publishing the site is just to let people know a thing you found or learned... that goal is still getting accomplished. I like how you posted so many times in this thread, with the assertion that that is the goal of people giving away stuff for free. Your responses in this thread are almost textbook example of Strawman Argument; you could not do a better Strawman Argument even if you tried!

reactordev 1y ago

More like when the project kids show up in the millionaire neighborhood because they know they’ll get full size candy bars. It’s not that there’s none for the others. It’s that there was this unspoken agreement, reinforced by the last 20 years, that website content is protected speech, protected intellectual property, and is copyrightable to its owner/author. Now, that trust and good faith is broken.

account42 1y ago
A yes of course, the poor poor AI companies getting scraps from the greedy independent website operators.

horsawlarway 1y ago

I really don't think this holds. It's vanishingly rare to end up in a spot where your site is getting enough LLM driven traffic for you to really notice (and I'm not talking out my ass - I host several sites from personal hardware running in my basement). Bots are a thing. Bots have been a thing and will continue to be a thing. They mostly aren't worth worrying about, and at least for now you can throw PoW in front of your site if you are suddenly getting enough traffic from them to care. In the mean time... Your bowl of candy is still there. Still full of your candy for real people to read. That's the fun of digital goods... They aren't "exhaustible" like your candy bowl. No LLM is dumping your whole bowl (they can't). At most - they're just making the line to access it longer.

igloopan 1y ago
I think you're missing the context that is the article. The candy in this case is the people who may or may not go to read your e.g. ramen recipe. The real problem, as I see it, is that over time, as LLMs absorb the information covered by that recipe, fewer people will actually look at the search results since the AI summary tells them how to make a good-enough bowl of ramen. The amount of ramen enjoyers is zero-sum. Your recipe will, of course, stay up and accessible to real people but LLMs take away impressions that could have been yours. In regards to this metaphor, they take your candy and put it in their own bowl.
- jasonvorhe 1y ago
  That's also trained behavior due to SEO infested recipe sites filled with advertorials, referral links to expensive kitchen equipment, long form texts about the recipe with the recipe hidden somewhere below that. Same goes for other stuff that can be easily propped up with lengthy text stuffed with just the right terms to spam search indexes with. LLMs are just readability on speed, with the downsides of drugs.
- horsawlarway 1y ago
  So what is the goal behind gathering those impressions? Why do you take this as a problem? And I'm not being glib here - those are genuine questions. If the goal is to share a good ramen recipe... are you not still achieving that?

pas 1y ago

What people want is critically important, yet they are heart wrenchingly unaware how (web1.0) technology cannot give it to them. And on a fundamental level - ie. as an information security problem - preventing copying by bots is logically incoherent with being open and free in the usual way. The way to make progress on this problem is to realize this, and then let people either find alternatives to publishing on websites, start a movement to stop machine learning, campaign for accountable AI, work on getting political power and getting compensation from these companies, etc.