[manuelmoreale]

    > Using everything as training data is entirely reasonable. Search engines are basically built on this. Regurgitation in very digested, very opinionated, direct citation form is totally reasonable.

Is it though? If I write about something and Google’s AI creates a regurgitation that is actually a misrepresentation of what I originally wrote and attaches my name on it as the source I think I might be pissed.

Search engines are built on data but they also should return 1 to 1 copies, not some modified version of them.

[GauntletWizard]

You and Benjamin Lee of The Guardian[1].

It's not illegal to cite someone out of context to distort their meaning - It's even hard to prove fraud from it. Caveat emptor and all that. Attributing a version made up whole cloth is different, but that's not what Google Search does, that's what Google Bard does.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/sep/09/legend...

[manuelmoreale]

I'm not saying it's illegal nor that it should be. I was just pushing against the idea that it's a totally reasonable thing to do.

> but that's not what Google Search does, that's what Google Bard does.

Agree which is why I said "Google’s AI". The problem I see is that AI creates this weird middle man that now also acts as a translation layer.

It used to be that you only had a search engine between you and the actual content and a search engine might only show you an excerpt of the original content (which can also be problematic) but at least it was the original content.

Now you have all these AI tools that try to make summaries of the original content and that IMO is very problematic.