31–40 of 65 posts
It's definitely not fair, but publishers were already driving away users with screens full of ads, newsletter pop ups, "affiliate" links, and padded-out content (so people scroll more and see more ads). Users aren't going to shed any tears for them.
IP is such a stupid concept. Both humans and AI use material to improve themselves and that material is often heavily gatekept (Try getting access to a "regular" scientific paper) and should be freely accessible to anyone. No matter who.
It's not a stupid concept. It exists because someone put effort in. Should we steal their effort?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big question is whether Google followed the content licensing, and if needed, paid for it.
I'm sure they did not, but the rich guys win, even if they do something truly illegal. If they would have respected the laws, OpenAI would not have been able to create AI models at all (as they are derivatives of copyrighted works). So it's pure piracy of content at scale. The same with Veo3. Is it beneficial to humanity ? Probably yes. Is it harmful to content creators ? Absolutely but in the long-term, they have li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also Chrome is basically useless as a money-making product without the google integrations. There's no way to monetize it without search and ad integrations.
Apple gets paid $20 billion per year to set Google as the default search engine in Safari...
Obviously there are massive profits to be made from private browsers.
IP is such a stupid concept. Both humans and AI use material to improve themselves and that material is often heavily gatekept (Try getting access to a "regular" scientific paper) and should be freely accessible to anyone. No matter who.
Somebody does something which takes some work. There's nothing special about his work other than that it is available-- there's so many stories you can tell, there's so many ways to express an idea, that to, if the author hadn't created a particular work, making it illegal to create that particular work, people wouldn't have lost anything. It would be a trivial restriction.
Thus when someone takes a particular work and does something with it, he chooses to not develop one of the other similar works he himself could have created, and takes advantage of somebody else's effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "traffic" did not incentivize "publishers" (as they call themselves) to produce any valuable content.. instead, it incentivized them to produce SEO garbage that's not helpful and often deceptive.
I think it's worth being thoughtful about the whole range of folks doing a whole range of stuff out on the Internet. I like this piece about the various incentives that exist: https://vbuckenham.com/blog/how-to-find-things-online/
There will have to be a new IP framework to make sure people are properly incentivized to produce content in an AI first world.
In the meantime, I think people should focus on attribution, and algorithms to find related work (which may suitably substitute for the former). This will allow us to fund creators and publishers for AI output, maybe by forcing the AI companies, or naturally through patronage (see AI output you like, find who owns the training data that contributed to it, donate to them). Moreover, it will help people discover more interesting things and creators.
IP is such a stupid concept. Both humans and AI use material to improve themselves and that material is often heavily gatekept (Try getting access to a "regular" scientific paper) and should be freely accessible to anyone. No matter who.
> IP is such a stupid concept. Both humans and AI use material to improve themselves and that material is often heavily gatekept (Try getting access to a "regular" scientific paper) and should be freely accessible to anyone. No matter who. It's not a stupid concept. It exists because someone put effort in. Should we steal their effort?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IP is such a stupid concept. Both humans and AI use material to improve themselves and that material is often heavily gatekept (Try getting access to a "regular" scientific paper) and should be freely accessible to anyone. No matter who. It's not a stupid concept. It exists because someone put effort in. Should we steal their effort?
I put in effort to brush my teeth every day. Everyone who sees my smile is stealing that effort and should be required to pay me.
IP is such a stupid concept. Both humans and AI use material to improve themselves and that material is often heavily gatekept (Try getting access to a "regular" scientific paper) and should be freely accessible to anyone. No matter who.
> IP is such a stupid concept. Both humans and AI use material to improve themselves and that material is often heavily gatekept (Try getting access to a "regular" scientific paper) and should be freely accessible to anyone. No matter who. It's not a stupid concept. It exists because someone put effort in. Should we steal their effort?
Imagine if Wikipedia had a paywall for each article… but you had to pay to a different organisation for each vaguely related set of pages. Some requiring recurring subscriptions and minimum spend so you can’t cancel.
Worse, the people demanding the payment aren’t even the operators of Wikipedia and they charge the article editors for the privilege of publishing on their platform!
You can have government funded research at a government funded university and then both the researcher and the students at that same university have to pay to have the research published and accessed!
But not too many pictures please and they can’t have color, that’s expensive, you see?
Raw data hosting? No way! Do that yourself.
Versioning, backlinks, ongoing feedback, comments, etc… don’t even ask! Do you think this is the future!?
Meanwhile the largest collaboration of human minds on the planet takes place on GitHub and is almost entirely volunteers working for free and giving away their work for free for everyone to fork and build on. And comment, contribute, and extend.
Science as it is today is a tyre fire and it is almost entirely the fault of rent seeking middlemen with misaligned incentives.