4 ms·

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. Kn

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!

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!