Interesting POV. Remind me - did those encyclopedias pay experts to write their contents, or did they just hoover up every bit of text they could find - regardless of owner - and toss it into a blender?

▲

jujube3 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, I'll remind you. The most popular encyclopedia of our time, Wikipedia, doesn't pay most of its contributors (I think they do have some administrative staff or something?). Nor do they pay journalists or authors for the articles and books that they cite.

▲

solid_fuel 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Interesting, interesting. And this wikipedia - it gets its contents by hoovering up the web, then? Or do you maybe want to put on your thinking hat and consider the difference between voluntary contributions and theft?

▲

jujube3 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, Wikipedia gets its content largely by hovering up the web, without the consent of the authors. For example you can cite a New York Times article in Wikipedia, without getting the consent of the NYT author. Wikipedia also "hoovers up" (as you put it) offline sources like books. Again without consent!

Indeed, the need to get consent from the author before reading a published work Isn't A Thing in general, outside some very specific contractural scenarios.

▲

solid_fuel 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Why are you claiming that citations are the same thing as theft without citation? There’s a mile of difference between citing a work and taking it, rewording it, and not crediting or compensating the original author.

	▲	gruez 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> There’s a mile of difference between citing a work and taking it, rewording it, and not crediting or compensating the original author. So what's wikipedia doing vs what LLMs do? So far as I can tell the only difference is in citations, but: 1. LLMs can be made to cite, eg. if you use google search's AI mode it'll happily provide citations. I doubt that would placate the AI haters though. 2. Outside of academia no one really cares about citations. There's no legal requirement to cite, nor do I think all the people complaining about AI "stealing" other peoples' work are going to be magically placated by the addition of a few citations. Moreover it's unclear whether the concept of citations makes sense in many contexts. If you ask a human programmer how to write fizzbuzz, they'll likely blurt out a solution without providing citations, much like an AI would. Same for most questions people are asking AI about, eg. "gimme a cake recipe", do you really need a citation back to some 18th century cook book?

▲

gruez 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't see how "experts" are relevant under OP's framework unless they're did the primary research themselves. Otherwise they're just regurgitating someone else's research. The "oh there's humans involved so that gets pass" excuse doesn't work either, because humans were also involved in training the AI.

▲

solid_fuel 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Please reread the comment you are replying to. I will wait.

—-

Now that you have reread the initial comment, do you think that “experts” was the important part? Or do you think maybe it was the compensation for their work that matters?

▲

gruez 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>Please reread the comment you are replying to. I will wait.

If you're going to post thinly veiled implications that I didn't read your comment, you should be pretty damn sure that you make it look like you read my comment, which it doesn't seem like you did. The second of my comment said:

>The "oh there's humans involved so that gets pass" excuse doesn't work either, because humans were also involved in training the AI.

If you did read it, you sure did a poor job at rebutting it, leaving it unaddressed and preferring to waste words on writing snarky remarks instead.

▲

solid_fuel 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you're going to post thinly veiled implications that I didn't read your comment

It was a statement, not an implication.

You still haven't replied to the point in the original comment about compensating the people who do this work, so I think it's quite obvious that you haven't read it.

	▲	gruez 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>You still haven't replied to the point in the original comment about compensating the people who do this work, so I think it's quite obvious that you haven't read it. Issac newton discovers the theory of gravity. He advanced the sum of human knowledge, so fair enough, he should get compensated. Alice rehashes that and puts it into her encyclopedia, allowing others to learn the theory of gravity. Bob writes an algorithm for training a chatbot that can produce responses rehashing the theory of gravity, also allowing others to learn the theory of gravity. Why should Alice be compensated but not Bob? Neither discovered the theory of gravity, so it's not like by funding Alice we're helping discover quantum physics or whatever. It's also not obvious that Alice's work is more valuable. A chatbot interface is often better at teaching someone than a rehashed overview. Of course, you can try to fix this by declaring that human work is valuable and an AI model isn't, by fiat, but that's just a cope and a far cry from the original principle of "trained on [...] human knowledge, so their outputs should belong to humanity" None of this matters for applying the law, because the law just says only human created works are eligible for copyright protection, but that's not the argument OP was trying to invoke. Finally none of this actually matters because OP just bites the bullet and says that secondary sources shouldn't be eligible for copyright, period.