[skilled]

I think a lot of people have a lot of opinions on any kind of feedback that is related to, "OpenAI took everyone's content and is now profiting off of it.".

The way I see it, the biggest losers are the average consumers. If you got skin in the game and you know how to automate the OpenAI API at scale - you're winning big. Google can't keep up with what is real or what isn't if you actually put in the work to structure the output in a useful manner. This can be done very efficiently and at scale if you know what you are doing.

So, not only is OpenAI winning but so are people who know how to build content websites and know how to get them to rank. The repetitive content cycle has always been a problem on the web (which is more the reason why places like HN are so great to find actual first-person experiences), but it is about to get amplified a hundredfold.

What OpenAI did is give everyone access to the Internet's content and let everyone mash it together in a way that fits their agenda. Everything that came before ChatGPT (and GPT-4) is pretty much rendered "the past". I'd definitely be pissed. That content was always there, of course. But before all this, you actually had to manually put in the work and the hours to try and piece together multiple key points from 10 different sources to create one unique perspective. OpenAI took a massive dookie on all that and just said fuck it. Let the genie out of the box and let us take a massive cut of the profits in the process.

I have zero doubt in my mind that OpenAI knew exactly what they were doing. They knew what kind of lawsuits or other complaints were going to come their way. And they still went ahead and released it anyway. And they're about to go even more crazy with Plugins. I'm not expecting this to happen per se, but I do have a gut feeling that some kind of brakes are going to be put on all this because whether you agree or not, this whole thing is out of control and not being controlled properly at all.

[rlt]

> you actually had to manually put in the work and the hours to try and piece together multiple key points from 10 different sources to create one unique perspective

It’s supposed to be a bad thing that OpenAI is making the world more efficient?

[skilled]

It is yes, at everyone else's expense while making a profit from it. What's your point exactly?

[iinnPP]

Seems par for the course here(and everywhere). Society has become(perhaps always has been) incredibly selfish. The extent of the common persons concern for others is typically expressed on things like Twitter or even HN. The types are in the same category as NIMBYs.

[rlt]

It’s not a zero sum game. Yes, some people will get screwed in the short term, as they have in every past technological revolution, but all of humanity will benefit in the long run (well, if it doesn’t destroy us)

[brookst]

How do you feel about factory automation? Is it equally tragic that a sheet metal hood that took 4 people a day to make is now 15 minutes for a completely automated machine?

[skilled]

As it happens I have actually worked in a factory before. Not for very long but for long enough to get an idea of the said "automated machine". Factory work is probably one of the most exhausting and labor (mental and physical) intensive jobs you can get in this world. It doesn't matter that the machine does all the smashing and mashing for you. You still have to pick up the ingredients, you still have to move the product from one destination to another. All that automation does in this context is it makes you do _more_ of the moving and more of the pushing. It doesn't exactly render your job experience as a dreamy paradise where you just click a few buttons (and these days you do have to click quite a few buttons) and the job is magically done.

I am talking about creative work. The kind of work where people had to go and first identify the issue themselves (not to mention come up with a unique solution in the first place), and then tell others how to work with it. In fact, there are too many variables for me to truly express how I feel or think on the matter.

All I am saying is that OpenAI knew that they were playing a dangerous game, and their only excuse is that enough "powerful" people will back their project for it not be stomped into the ground by regulations.

Do you not find it pathetic that OpenAI talks about security, precautions, responsible AI and so forth, and yet at the same time rake in millions of dollars in revenue? Do you think their goal was to 'advance humanity' or something like that? I'd be very doubtful of that.

[ForestCritter]

I also work in manufacturing metal parts, mainly because it pays better and is more stable than using my creative skill, and I am currently without a workshop. Creative skills are often devalued on here as well as operating skills are devalued in factories. The 'industrial revolution' is often cited as the end all argument, despite a complete lack of understanding of the skills and labor required for both manufacturing and creative processes, to appropriate the efforts of said creative skills for free. And as someone who has had to 'wrangle the robots' in our semi automated line I can safely say automation is not nearly as widespread or glorious as it is made out to be. The data didn't fall from the sky and it wasn't created by robots. It takes humans to make data just like it takes humans to work in factories.

[brookst]

Everything you said about factory work is also true of creative work. Authors will tell you that it's 10% writing and 90% rewriting.

I try not to guess at motives and goals of people I don't know because I don't think they matter. It doesn't sound like your opinions would change if Altman submitted to a brain scan where you could verify his purity (or not), and honestly mine wouldn't either. And no, I dobn't see pathos in for-profit entities talking about safety. Carmakers, construction companies, and theme parks all do the same thing.

I see AI as a productivity multiplier, much as you described factory automation. And I see a lot of information workers suddenly echoing the same concerns we all ignored from factory workers, because oh wow now it could affect us.

[rlt]

> I am talking about creative work. The kind of work where people had to go and first identify the issue themselves (not to mention come up with a unique solution in the first place), and then tell others how to work with it.

I’m sure film photographers complained about digital photography when it was first introduced. And painters about film photography. Etc etc.

[masswerk]

If "more efficient" is alternative phrasing for "not reviewing the sources and context that go into my piece": yes.

[brookst]

Counterpoint:

1. Humans were generating massive amounts of false information that Google couldn't keep up with, years before Openai appeared.

2. The people who stand to lose the most are those whose jobs are replaceable: information workers. I cringe hearing "but this is different than the industrial revolution and government needs to protect me".

3. If Openai "stole" publicly posted content, then so does Google, and so does every human who reads anything online.

4. You may be right about brakes. Revolutions that displaced factory workers, taxi drivers, typists -- those were all well and good. But threaten the moneyed class and suddenly we're seeing so-called libertarians (not you, I mean like Musk) calling for regulation.

[lewhoo]

"and so does every human who reads anything online"

Why should things have human rights and privileges then ? I really don't know the solution to the emerging issues we face here, but I read the same "like a human" argument over and over and I can't really help but notice that LLM's are NOT human. We deny a lot of human rights to primate animals but should immediately accept the human-likeness of LLM's ?

"If Openai "stole" publicly posted content, then so does Google"

This also makes a lot of assumptions which I think we shouldn't make just yet. That's because if we equate LLM's with a search engine then the argument of plagiarism makes a lot more sense. At least google leads to the original content.

[masswerk]

A 1) Still, as this were humans, there was a purpose and an agenda behind this, which was pretty much the give-away. Now it'll be just junk content superficially optimized for high approval rates. And the economic incentives provide a strong hint for this being soon the majority of any (written) content, there is, esp. on the Web.

[masswerk]

P.S.: Possible outcome: Publishing may shift (back) to forms, which involve higher costs, like print, in order to provide a suitable filter, both economical and in terms of an higher-order review (as provided by a publisher). The Web, lacking any of these filters, may actually follow the way of Usenet.