Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?

chatgpt actually has some ideas about this

question: How could the people who generate used in an ai language model be paid for their work?

answer: There are several ways in which the people who generate content for an AI language model could be paid for their work:

    Royalty-based payment: Content creators could receive a percentage of the revenue generated from the use of their content in the AI language model.

    Token-based payment: If the AI language model is built on a blockchain, content creators could be paid in tokens that could be traded for cryptocurrency or fiat currency.

    Partnership with content publishers: The developers of the AI language model could partner with content publishers to compensate the creators of the scraped content.

My feeling is that one of the four happen:

1) AI is open sourced and we adapt stably. Either everybody has the opportunity to be their own business, or there is UBI.

2) AI is open sourced but it is unfairly distributed. Only some people are suited to BTOB, and/or UBI is shit.

3) AI is not open sourced, the wealthy edge out mankind and a planet scale genocide occurs.

4) none of it matters because the looming war between the US & China explodes or climate change wipes us out in any meaningful capacity that could pursue AI.

Given the track record of our species, #1 feels like wishful thinking

Yes it absolutely is, but imo less so than what GitHub Copilot and various image generation companies are doing. My theory is that if AI turns out to be as disruptive as the current hype suggests, the conflict between those who feed the AI vs. those who profit from it might be the next big social rift.

Artists are already in full rebellion against this, as they should be, being nearly eclipsed by AI, except when it comes to inventing new styles and hand-crafting samples for the models to train on. These, I assume, are either scraped off the web, or signed away in unfair ToS of various online publishing platforms.

Since the damage individually is small (they took some code from me without attribution, ok) but collectively enormous, in my opinion it the role of government to step in and soften the blow if necessary.

If "fairness" isn't worth figuring out for a society, why is our entire economic order nominally built ontop of such a virtue? How is this not the very thing we are talking about? People starve on the streets right now because any other arrangement of resources has been deemed "unfair." Do we not sign a contract for our labor or for our homes because of shared idea of fairness? Fairness is the ultimate thing we appeal to in our world, it is the only thing that can sustain the intense individuality of the modern world. Dont ambiguate it as a Nietzchean moral fairness here, we are talking about the pseudo-algorithmic fairness of a market which guarantees certain things if you trade enough of your resources.

Maybe unfair is the wrong word. I think most agree that scraping, even at a massive scale -- is in itself fair. But is it sustainable?

Will LLMs drive interest/activity away from wikipedia.org? Will it put its own sources of high-quality ad-supported content -- wikihow.com, for example (though I can't be totally sure it scraped from there) -- out of business? Or is there an earth-shattering copyright suit against OpenAI in the works as we speak?

> Can this start breaking the ad-based model of the internet

Is the alternative that everything is behind some kind of paywall by default, to block scraping? Is that where we're heading?