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
How are the LLMs rent seeking? they are clearly providing value that people want to pay for..

>>Zpalmt+id
The LLMs don't create new content, they can only rehash existing content (in term news), which they then don't pay for... It's not really the definition of rent seeking though, they do provide some value and mostly without manipulation, not deliberate anyway. LLM also aren't harmful as such, they can be, if we use them wrong, but that's not really the fault of the technology.

I do find is a bit dishonest when they charge for their services, but don't wish to pay the people who's work the models are based on. Why should I pay to use ChatGPT, if they won't pay to use my blog posts?