zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
This is just rent seeking from dying media instead of working on creating something new in my view.

AI indeed is reading and using material sa a source, but is deriving results based on that material. I think this should be allowed, but now it is a fight who has better paid politicians pretty much.

I am open to hear other thoughts.

>>desire+M6
Here’s another thought: It’s good that there are real incentives to produce original content. Especially investigative journalism which is an extremely tough business financially — even without LLMs — but with lots of social value.

It would be silly to totally destroy the incentive to produce new technologies like LLMs, but so wouldn’t it be silly to destroy the incentive to produce original, high-quality content either for human or LLM consumption.

FWIW the LLMs are obviously the ones rent-seeking here, if you’re trying to use the term for its actual meaning instead of just “charge a subscription for something I don’t want to pay for.”

>>ethanb+M9
The whole idea of "a dying media" is pretty scary to me. It indicates that some people place no value in journalism. To be fair, there are a huge number of newspapers who also place little to no value in journalism. I have a number of local papers who will report on celebrity gossip, but it's all auto-translate from somewhere and just posted without questioning, so you end up with random "news" about a person who is completely unknown in the country.

Real, and especially investigative, journalism is extremely expensive and it's not something modern AI is even remotely capable to doing. It might be able to help and make it cheaper, but you can't replace newspapers with ChatGPT and expect to get anything but random gossip and rehashed press releases. I do wonder why the New York Times believe you can.