zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
Interesting.

I think the appropriation, privatization, and monetization of "all human output" by a single (corporate) entity is at least shameless, probably wrong, and maybe outright disgraceful.

But I think OpenAI (or another similar entity) will succeed via the Sackler defense - OpenAI has too many victims for litigation to be feasible for the courts, so the courts must preemptively decide not to bother with compensating these victims.

>>NiloCK+L8
What concerns me, and I don’t see mentioned as much as I would expect, is: how will people be compensated for generating new content if ChatGPT takes over?

I believe the innovation that will really “win” generative AI in the long term is one that figures out how to keep the model populated with fresh, relevant, quality information in a sustainable way.

I think generative AI represents a chance to fundamentally rethink the value chain around information and research. But for all their focus on “non-profit” and “good for humanity”, they don’t seem very interested in that.

>>ttcbj+sc
Agree. My view is we’re in the Napster moment and someone is going to invent the iTunes Music Store. Language models are a distribution mechanism for knowledge content—- in many cases more efficient and useful than the originally packaged materials (akin to how downloading a single pop song is greater than buying the album). It feels clear this is where we’re headed (verified, compensated content delivered through a new mechanism); this lawsuit is like the RIAA v. music sharing and the question is just if the current players in AI make it through or if someone else will come in and do iTunes.