51–60 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.
We’re talking Future Publishing or even NYT here…
IP laws will never be enforced on LLMs because they cannot be enforced on Chinese open source LLMs. Western governments would rather publishers lose some property rights than tolerate a world where their industries become dependent on Chinese LLMs. Although to be clear, they probably don’t enjoy either option.
Western governments would rather citizens lose some rights and years off their life than tolerate a world where their industries become dependent on Chinese manufacturing.
————
Western governments could make models trained on stolen IP toxic if they wanted.
It may not be worth it. The trade off of model capability vs the value of IP law might be worthwhile.
But western governments should show a little dignity and openly make that trade off. We don’t need to appeal to “but China”.
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?
With scientific research especially the gate keeping is insanely counter-productive. 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…
IP laws will never be enforced on LLMs because they cannot be enforced on Chinese open source LLMs. Western governments would rather publishers lose some property rights than tolerate a world where their industries become dependent on Chinese LLMs. Although to be clear, they probably don’t enjoy either option.
Workplace safety, environmental protection and human rights laws will never be enforced in the manufacturing industry because they cannot be enforced on the Chinese manufacturing industry. Western governments would rather citizens lose some rights and years off their life than tolerate a world where their industries become dependent on Chinese manufacturing. ———— Western governments could make models trained on stole…
It’s not clear that was a good decision, but tariffs and similar restrictions at least provide hope of a remedy. But we can’t use tariffs on open source software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Workplace safety, environmental protection and human rights laws will never be enforced in the manufacturing industry because they cannot be enforced on the Chinese manufacturing industry. Western governments would rather citizens lose some rights and years off their life than tolerate a world where their industries become dependent on Chinese manufacturing. ———— Western governments could make models trained on stole…
Western governments were willing to give up their manufacturers sectors, or at least large parts of them, to maintain better environmental/labour laws than China. It’s not clear that was a good decision, but tariffs and similar restrictions at least provide hope of a remedy. But we can’t use tariffs on open source software.
Their motivation wasn't the maintenance of better environmental and labor laws, but higher profits from exploiting China's more business friendly (less regulation, fewer labor rights) environment. Had it been economically and politically viable for Western governments to domestically enact the same environmental and labor standards as China, they would have done so. And as soon as the quality of life in China improved enough that labor there was no longer economically viable, many companies moved their outsourcing elsewhere, such as to Vietnam or Africa.
Elevator Operators (people who were driving elevators up and down) also got their job "stolen" by AI. Was it the responsibility of the people who created automated, cheaper and better elevators to defend the job of these obsolete people ? Not really.
And no one expects a "free job"; they just expect their work to not be used in ways that doesn't benefit them at all (but instead benefits someone else).
The bizarre analogies AI maximalists are pushing are boring and tedious to the point of bad faith.
But what do I know ... I'm just an "obsolete person" shrug
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.
When the quality content continues to disappear, then they will care - and it will be too late. We’re talking Future Publishing or even NYT here…
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.
The AI results are also going to be filled with that kind of trash if they aren't already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the quality content continues to disappear, then they will care - and it will be too late. We’re talking Future Publishing or even NYT here…
NYT dying because of moderate changes to Google search is a gigantic slippery-slope argument, and would be such a slow process that there'd be plenty of time to pivot anyway.
11.6 million subscribers. 600,000 of them get the dead tree edition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/07/business/media/new-york-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/
I don't know how your comment addresses my comment and the article you mentioned is long. But since you replied, you know what you meant, so could you share your particular argument?