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 23 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?