Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Publishers want billions, not millions, from AI

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: Publishers want billions, not millions, from AI

#71

Post by atonse »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #66
atonse wrote: post #2

Presumably OpenAI and others (for the most part) are checking the licenses for content they use in training? Let’s say for example that they trained on the content of the entire archive of the New York Times… isn’t it safe to say they’d have purchased a license for that content from NYT? Wouldn’t “commercial use” cover this? Seems like the publishers just want a piece of the money because they want a piece of the mon…

>Seems like the publishers just want a piece of the money because they want a piece of the money. Sure, but of course, we all know the actual value came from the writers.

And the writers were already compensated for their work.

Re: Publishers want billions, not millions, from AI

#72

Post by eli_gottlieb »

atonse wrote: post #71
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Seems like the publishers just want a piece of the money because they want a piece of the money. Sure, but of course, we all know the actual value came from the writers.

And the writers were already compensated for their work.

Oh were they? So they get paid once and the LLM trainer gets paid unlimited times?

Re: Publishers want billions, not millions, from AI

#73

Post by mikewarot »

tracker1 wrote: post #58
pyrophane wrote: post #10

I am reminded somewhat of the ride & delivery apps here. While they did use tech to enable some cool things like demand pricing and efficient route planning, a big part of their innovation really came from using that tech to shovel most of the risk and cost of providing the service onto independent contractors. LLMs are a genuinely exciting technology, but I am worried that a part of what they enable will turn out to…

I'm a mod/admin on a topic site, similar to HN in structure... one of the posts I removed a few weeks ago literally made me feel ill... it was a guide on setting up a website, then using an LLM to generate hundreds of "articles" for said site. I've started seeing content sites that are obviously generated content looking at it... mostly in terms of recipe content for lower carb, or sugar free... some list ingredients…

>I can't help but think it may be a time to return to self-hosted systems like the BBSes of the 80's and early 90's

I couldn't agree more. We need to stop using other people's computers to host our stuff. (Or, at least we need to rent the machines ourselves). These days, the BitTorrent protocol is popular enough that you could likely host the equivalent of a YouTube channel for very little actual bandwidth cost.

Text, forums, etc... without media, are almost free until you scale into millions of users.

Re: Publishers want billions, not millions, from AI

#74

Post by bathtub365 »

mikewarot wrote: post #73
tracker1 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a mod/admin on a topic site, similar to HN in structure... one of the posts I removed a few weeks ago literally made me feel ill... it was a guide on setting up a website, then using an LLM to generate hundreds of "articles" for said site. I've started seeing content sites that are obviously generated content looking at it... mostly in terms of recipe content for lower carb, or sugar free... some list ingredients…

>I can't help but think it may be a time to return to self-hosted systems like the BBSes of the 80's and early 90's I couldn't agree more. We need to stop using other people's computers to host our stuff. (Or, at least we need to rent the machines ourselves). These days, the BitTorrent protocol is popular enough that you could likely host the equivalent of a YouTube channel for very little actual bandwidth cost. Text…

Doesn’t the BitTorrent protocol use other people’s computers to host your stuff?

Re: Publishers want billions, not millions, from AI

#75

Post by snehk »

JohnFen wrote: post #69
WirelessGigabit wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And taxi drivers themselves caused Uber to be so popular. The amount of times I've gotten into a cab in London before Uber and the cabbie was like: "Cash only". What's that machine for then? "Credit card machine down". Yea right... I absolutely hate what Uber did with 'contractors' but I cannot deny the fact that I like being able to travel for work without having to worry about whether the cab has a credit card mach…

> And taxi drivers themselves caused Uber to be so popular. That entirely depends on where you are. Where I am, ride-share services were never better than taxis in any way except for price.

I wish I could say the same about my location. Where I live they can't even tell you how much the ride will be.

Re: Publishers want billions, not millions, from AI

#76

Post by mikewarot »

bathtub365 wrote: post #74
mikewarot wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't help but think it may be a time to return to self-hosted systems like the BBSes of the 80's and early 90's I couldn't agree more. We need to stop using other people's computers to host our stuff. (Or, at least we need to rent the machines ourselves). These days, the BitTorrent protocol is popular enough that you could likely host the equivalent of a YouTube channel for very little actual bandwidth cost. Text…

Doesn’t the BitTorrent protocol use other people’s computers to host your stuff?

It uses everyone who has already downloaded a file to help share it, so the more popular a file is, the more people host it.

You don't have to keep sharing though, once you've downloaded it. It's voluntary.

Re: Publishers want billions, not millions, from AI

#77

Post by pasttense01 »

teeray wrote: post #8
atonse wrote: post #2

Presumably OpenAI and others (for the most part) are checking the licenses for content they use in training? Let’s say for example that they trained on the content of the entire archive of the New York Times… isn’t it safe to say they’d have purchased a license for that content from NYT? Wouldn’t “commercial use” cover this? Seems like the publishers just want a piece of the money because they want a piece of the mon…

> Wouldn’t “commercial use” cover this? The problem is that companies see that they undersold their content relative to the value it’s providing LLMs, and now want to renegotiate past and future deals with AI companies. Exactly as you said: they just want a bigger slice of pie.

How big is the pie? How much money are the AI companies actually making?
Post reply on HN