[ethanbond]

Oh thank goodness we can rely on charity for our information economy

> Also, presumably NYT still has a business model unrelated to whatever OpenAI is doing with [NYT’s] data…

That’s exactly the question. They are claiming it is destroying their business, which is pretty much self-evident given all the people in here defending the convenience of OpenAI’s product: they’re getting the fruits of NYTimes’ labor without paying for it in eyeballs or dollars. That’s the entire value prop of putting this particular data into the LLMs.

[Zambyte]

> Oh thank goodness we can rely on charity for our information economy

You seem to be assuming an "information economy" should exist at all. Can you justify that?

[ethanbond]

Yep! I like having access to high-quality information and producing, collecting, editing, and publishing that is not free.

Much of it is only cost-effective to produce if you can share it with a massive audience, I.e. sure if I want to read a great investigative piece on the corruption of a Supreme Court Justice I can hypothetically commission one, but in practice it seems much much better to allow people to have businesses that undertake such matters and publish their findings to a large audience at a low unit price.

Now what’s your argument for removing such an incentive?

[denton-scratch]

> that is not free

Why did you specify that this stuff you like, you only like if it's "not free"?

The hidden assumption is that the information you like wouldn't be made available unless someone was paying for it. But that's not in evidence; a lot of information and content is provided to the public due to other incentives: self-promotion, marketing, or just plain interest.

Would you prefer not to have access to Wikipedia?

[ethanbond]

I’ll restate it for clarity: I like high-quality information. Producing and publishing high-quality information is not free.

There are ways to make it free to the consumer, yes. One way is charity (Wikipedia) and another way is advertising. Neither is free to produce; the advertising incentive is also nuked by LLMs; and I’m not comfortable depending on charity for all of my information.

It is a lot cheaper to produce low-quality than high-quality information. This is doubly so in a world of LLMs.

There is ONE Wikipedia, and it is surely one of mankind’s crowning achievements. You’re pointing to that to say, “see look, it’s possible!”?

[denton-scratch]

Well, its existence does prove it's possible!

I contribute to Wikipedia, and I don't consider my contributions to be "charity"; I contribute because I enjoy it. Even in the age of printing presses, copyright law was widely ignored, well into the 20thC. The USA didn't join the Berne Convention until 1989 (and they promptly went mad with copyright).

Yes, there's only one Wikipedia; but there are lots of copies, and lots of similar efforts. Yes, there's one Wikipedia, like there's one Mona Lisa. There are lots of things of which there's only one; in that sense, Wikipedia isn't remotely unique.

[ethanbond]

> I contribute to Wikipedia, and I don't consider my contributions to be "charity"; I contribute because I enjoy it.

Does your personal satisfaction pay the server bills too?

[rqtwteye]

We absolutely need an information economy where people can research things and publish what they find without needing some deep pocketed sponsors. Some may do it for money, some may do it for recognition. Once AI absorbs all that information and uses it without attribution these incentives go away. I am sure OpenAI, Microsoft and others will love a world where they have a quasi monopoly on what information goes to the public but I don't think we want that.