Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say • Hacker News Board

Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say

#61

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Sat, May 24, 2025, 3:43 PM UTC

jxjnskkzxxhx wrote: post #6

Maybe off topic, but Ive always found strange people who comment on Google's monopoly by focusing on chrome. It seems obvious to me that the key to their dominance is that they both have control over how traffic is distributed to websites, and how those websites get paid for the traffic they get. Chrome and android are just nice to haves, but Google would still be a monopoly without them. I think if you wanna break u…

"Chrome and android are just nice to haves, but Google would still be a monopoly without them."

Being a monopoly is not unlawful.

"... the possession of monopoly power will not be found unlawful unless it is accompanied by an element of anticompetitive conduct."

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/131153/verizon-communi...

Google's anticompetitive conduct occurred mainly through agreements concerning web browser defaults.

Controlling default settings in web browsers via these agreements will be prohibited. It stands to reason that controlling default settings by distributing its own web browser will, too.

"Maybe off topic, but Ive always found strange people who comment on Google's monopoly by focusing on chrome."

As such, it is not strange that proposed remedies targeting Chrome were submitted and have been a focus of online commentary.

Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say

#62

Post by zb3 » Sat, May 24, 2025, 4:30 PM UTC

kixiQu wrote: post #60

zb3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think connecting this to what V expressed is the value I meant to add here, I think they expressed what they meant with the detail required to express it, and I'm not interested in engaging with the topic on a level that works from summaries alone. Suffice to say that you responded to a comment speaking of how "people are properly incentivized to produce content" by saying '"traffic" did not incentivize "publishers…

> as though traffic didn't have to do with the people out there publishing valuable stuff on the internet today, or as though such people don't exist

Even if there are people, today, that do publish valuable stuff on the internet only because (or thanks to) the expected traffic (either own ads or selling ad space), I claim that without that traffic, there will be others who will be publishing valuable stuff, and the traffic incentivized garbage more than the valuable stuff.

Finally, if that's not the case, then in order for the LLM to be useful, it needs valuable training data. So this problem solves itself - competitive LLM company will need to pay for the data directly, and for me, that model incentivizes valuable stuff more than garbage.

Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say

#63

Post by jiggawatts » Sat, May 24, 2025, 10:22 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #53

jiggawatts wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If scientists want to be volunteers and publish openly, that can happen today. Nothing stops them. That's the Wikipedia model, is it not?

The institutions that they work for have been thoroughly bribed to make that difficult. You can't get tenure unless you publish in a "reputable" paper, for example.

For IT people, the rough equivalent is why a 1 KB file costs $50/year despite containing not much more than a random number and a text field verified with a single API call.

Sure, you can have a HTTPS certificate for free! You can!

Just not through Azure Key Vault CA automation, because Let's Encrypt couldn't afford the kick-back to a middle manager in Redmond. Or more charitably, because "there's no margin on free".

Never underestimate the ability and willingness of billions of managers to insert themselves into the middle and collect rent on everybody below them.

Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say

#64

Post by wapeoifjaweofji » Tue, May 27, 2025, 1:28 AM UTC

j_timberlake wrote: post #58

wapeoifjaweofji wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI results are also going to be filled with that kind of trash if they aren't already.

People have been claiming AI text will be filled with ads since long before ChatGPT, and I'm sure they'll continue to await it for years to come.

Indeed, even the OpenAI CFO continues to actively await them.

> Sarah Friar, chief financial officer at OpenAI, told the Financial Times in an interview that the $150bn AI start-up was weighing up an ads model, adding that it planned to be “thoughtful about when and where we implement them [ads]”.

https://www.ft.com/content/9350d075-1658-4d3c-8bc9-b9b3dfc29...

https://archive.ph/GlE3F

Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say

#65

Post by robertlagrant » Tue, May 27, 2025, 8:28 AM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #63

robertlagrant wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If scientists want to be volunteers and publish openly, that can happen today. Nothing stops them. That's the Wikipedia model, is it not?

The institutions that they work for have been thoroughly bribed to make that difficult. You can't get tenure unless you publish in a "reputable" paper, for example. For IT people, the rough equivalent is why a 1 KB file costs $50/year despite containing not much more than a random number and a text field verified with a single API call. Sure, you can have a HTTPS certificate for free! You can! Just not through Azure…

If they're working for institutions then that's not the same as volunteering for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers.

I'm replying to a comment that negatively compares science publishing to Wikipedia. What stops a scientist publishing work voluntarily on a free platform?