3 ms·

I think LLMs providers pretty directly compete with content they scrape like Wikipedia and SO...

by nixpulvis 12d ago

bayindirh 12d ago
Remember the golden rule of the golden rules: Who has the gold makes the rules.
- atemerev 12d ago
  If a society operates under a rule like this, it is no better than Russia or any other tyranny where law is for me but not for thee. This is not how it should work in a supposedly free and lawful country.
  - bio_hacker 12d ago
    That’s how works everywhere
    - seanw444 12d ago
      You're downvoted, but it's true. Some places just mask it with fancy processes and manners a bit better.
  - lovich 12d ago
    It’s been working like that in the US for a while. Do you think the bottom 99% of the country would ever win a legal fight with one of the tech billionaires? Even if they were 100% in the right, they could just drag out the legal process with endless motions and appeals until the average Joe lacked the funds to continue the fight.
    - atemerev 12d ago
      Well I have heard that some people managed to sue some corporations and actually win some cases before.
      - bayindirh 12d ago
        PFAS case is a rare occurrence, and this is after DuPont knowing the harms and downplaying or ignoring it for decades. A similar thing has been surfaced in Dalton, Georgia, again about PFAS [0]. Let's see how will it play out... [0]: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/pfas-forever-chemicals-carpet-industry-georgia/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/pfas-forever-chem...
      - lovich 12d ago
        When I said the tech billionaires I meant the actual oligarchs. Companies will eventually take a cost benefit evaluation and stop fighting if the risk is too high or the fines too large. A personal billionaire who decides to fuck you over is capable of behaving irrationally and just beating you via resources. Look at trumps infinite appeal strategy which apparently works. He only just was forced to pay Jean Carrol a few months ago, four years after he lost his civil case. If you’re a regular Joe and some billionaire harmed you in a way that hurt your income. You’re not gonna be able to afford 4 years of legal battles. As long as money buys power in our legal system, you can’t compete with someone with effectively infinite more wealth than you.
bluefirebrand 12d ago
No kidding. I dunno what kind of traffic loss Wikipedia has had but SO is really dead these days If they weren't competing with AI then why is AI killing it?
- brainwad 12d ago
  There's a difference between creating a market for something better, so that nobody wants the old thing, and competing _in_ the market for the old thing by copying it directly.
  - darkwater 12d ago
    And what would be a read-only version of X like XCancel compete against, exactly? Ads impressions? That would be the only possible thing yet they don't add any ads.
    - brainwad 12d ago
      It's depriving X of impressions that they could monetise, no? Xcancel doesn't have to make money itself, it just has to impair the rights of the copyright holder. Otherwise piracy would also be legal as long as it were non-profit...
      - darkwater 12d ago
        > Otherwise piracy would also be legal as long as it were non-profit... Which is in a few jurisdictions, or at least is not prosecuted if it's for personal use. Also, according to your definition, the creator of uBlock Origin or any other adblock system should be sued in the same way, because they are depriving $ADS_CORP of their precious impressions.
        brainwad 12d ago
        Well, adblockers don't copy the copyrighted content. They just control how it's rendered on the user's machine. Copyright cares about making copies and especially distributing them.

I think LLMs providers pretty directly compete with content they scrape like Wikipedia and SO...

bayindirh 12d ago

Remember the golden rule of the golden rules: Who has the gold makes the rules.

atemerev 12d ago
If a society operates under a rule like this, it is no better than Russia or any other tyranny where law is for me but not for thee. This is not how it should work in a supposedly free and lawful country.
- bio_hacker 12d ago
  That’s how works everywhere
  - seanw444 12d ago
    You're downvoted, but it's true. Some places just mask it with fancy processes and manners a bit better.
- lovich 12d ago
  It’s been working like that in the US for a while. Do you think the bottom 99% of the country would ever win a legal fight with one of the tech billionaires? Even if they were 100% in the right, they could just drag out the legal process with endless motions and appeals until the average Joe lacked the funds to continue the fight.
  - atemerev 12d ago
    Well I have heard that some people managed to sue some corporations and actually win some cases before.
    - bayindirh 12d ago
      PFAS case is a rare occurrence, and this is after DuPont knowing the harms and downplaying or ignoring it for decades. A similar thing has been surfaced in Dalton, Georgia, again about PFAS [0]. Let's see how will it play out... [0]: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/pfas-forever-chemicals-carpet-industry-georgia/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/pfas-forever-chem...
    - lovich 12d ago
      When I said the tech billionaires I meant the actual oligarchs. Companies will eventually take a cost benefit evaluation and stop fighting if the risk is too high or the fines too large. A personal billionaire who decides to fuck you over is capable of behaving irrationally and just beating you via resources. Look at trumps infinite appeal strategy which apparently works. He only just was forced to pay Jean Carrol a few months ago, four years after he lost his civil case. If you’re a regular Joe and some billionaire harmed you in a way that hurt your income. You’re not gonna be able to afford 4 years of legal battles. As long as money buys power in our legal system, you can’t compete with someone with effectively infinite more wealth than you.

bluefirebrand 12d ago

No kidding. I dunno what kind of traffic loss Wikipedia has had but SO is really dead these days If they weren't competing with AI then why is AI killing it?

brainwad 12d ago
There's a difference between creating a market for something better, so that nobody wants the old thing, and competing _in_ the market for the old thing by copying it directly.
- darkwater 12d ago
  And what would be a read-only version of X like XCancel compete against, exactly? Ads impressions? That would be the only possible thing yet they don't add any ads.
  - brainwad 12d ago
    It's depriving X of impressions that they could monetise, no? Xcancel doesn't have to make money itself, it just has to impair the rights of the copyright holder. Otherwise piracy would also be legal as long as it were non-profit...
    - darkwater 12d ago
      > Otherwise piracy would also be legal as long as it were non-profit... Which is in a few jurisdictions, or at least is not prosecuted if it's for personal use. Also, according to your definition, the creator of uBlock Origin or any other adblock system should be sued in the same way, because they are depriving $ADS_CORP of their precious impressions.
      - brainwad 12d ago
        Well, adblockers don't copy the copyrighted content. They just control how it's rendered on the user's machine. Copyright cares about making copies and especially distributing them.