Sure - it sucks, unfortunately the alternative is the sites going away entirely. When the load from scraper bots is constantly knocking the site offline the choices are literally to allow it to remain inaccessible for much of the time, put up a layer of defenses with all the user-annoyance compromises that entails, or just give up and unpublish the site.

Cloudflare specifically has a block for LLM and AI training bots now.

Not sure of the effectiveness but it's there.

Me, I'm just scraping the parts of the internet I like, toying with local LLMs… ready really to just shove off.

Your thinking too narrowly about the reward. Sometimes, it's just about the getting the knowledge out there that's motivating the creator, not anything tangible for themselves.

Did the operators of HN mention anything about a reward structure for posting comments here? I'm sure you can see how that's still attractive to some.

The danger that's concerning people (rightly or wrongly) isn't that LLMs are going to be an intermediary to your website. It's that they'll be the only thing reading it. No one will ever read your post or know what you wrote. The only consumers will be LLMs, they'll train on a version that strips out you as the author (probably more due to expedience than any sort of malice; it's not like you're famous, are you?), and your idea might get embedded into a set of model weights somewhere. No human will see a byte of it.

Are you actually saying you'd be OK with that?

Your level of thinking is defined by ICD-10.

Yeah, authors don't want to be recognized as authors, they don't want any reward for their work, they don't want to amass pool of loyal readers, interact with them, etc.

All they want is for halucinating AI to take excerpts of their work and compile it with random sh!t.

GENIUS

I mainly shared my projects for learning, discussion and bragging rights.

LLMs just use everything, generate similar code with no attribution and keep users from visiting, so no bragging rights or attention.

Worse, there are some PRs that seem fully generated ...

So i mostly stopped sharing and started pulling my old repos offline.

At this pace, i don't want to compete with a clone of myself in the future that will do my work for much cheaper.

There are different types of writing. If we depend on people writing because it's enjoyable at some level, we're going to lose writing that's important but also a bit tedious.

> I write because I have ideas I want to share, and whether that happens with LLMs as an intermediary isn't important to me.

Sure. But you can see that for some people (myself included), writing for peers is part of the joy? And that if instead a megacorp places an opaque computer program between the author and the readers, that joy might be ruined?

There had always been some incentive for manufactures to publish device documentation, and yet it has often been quite lacking either in quality or overall existence. I doubt LLM/agents being the readers will change that at all. What I expect AI scraping and using without credit will impact is people publishing their own unofficial help and guidance, and the affect there is likely to be negative. It won't stop all of them, but enough to be noticeable. Another possible negative is the manufactures documentation being AI generated without sufficient review, so possibly more erroneous than before, or intentionally not producing full documentation at all and expecting AI to fill the gap (MS seems to be heading this way: pushing "ask copilot" all over Azure instead of links direct to good reference material). All this would add up to a situation that is somewhere between "a little worse than pre-AI" and "an absolute shit show".

Manuals don't always well explain how to use their products with everybody else's products because there are too many to do that. But there are lots of people trying things out and might figure out the fine details on how to make various things work. They then publish these how-to pieces (which exist no where else) to the internet, or at least they used to when there were incentives to do so.

> Funny, I published information in the hopes that humans would benefit from it.

Sure, humans would benefit.

It took them searching, reading themselves, maybe even understanding something in the process, to complete a 360° revolution of their squirrel cages in time T.

Now they can omit searching, skip reading to the regurgitated answer, throw away understanding, and complete a full revolution in T/N, where N is a heuristic value directly proportional to the amount of skin in the AI hype.

But the catch is that the squirrel cage must run non-stop still.

People are way less likely to write if there is no one to read it. And blog were also monkey see monley do - people seen other peoples blogs and got inspired.

When people wont see others blogs, they wont start writing own. When there will bw no ome to actually read it, they will go to do something else.

Actually no. The original copyright laws were created in part because of the realities of needed profit motive to have high value writing done, time consuming compilation work done. It was even titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning". The thousands of years writing you are talking about was often funded by patrons, who kept the output in their private libraries to show off (and maybe lend out) for prestige. It was a horrible limitation of knowledge and ideas. Much worse than the profit motive, copyright based system that came after that spawned a new age of knowledge in which everyone had cheap access, and those that didn't had access to the (no longer just private) libraries.

I'm sure the billionaire class would love a return to patronage based libraries, NDAs on authors of books, and the elitism they would feel with a return to private libraries locking away all kinds of knowledge that would happen if patronage become the only way authors could make money (such as with AI just regurgitating their works, or if the stupid 'do away with copyright' people got their way).