[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?

[denton-scratch]

Of course not. But paying the server bills won't magically produce the excellent content that you value so much. That's produced by volunteers.

There's a tendency among some people to take the nostrums of economists about the aggregate behaviour of populations as if they described human nature, and to then go on and conclude that because human behaviour in aggregate can be understood in terms of economic incentives, that an individual human can only be motivated economically. I find that an impoverished and shallow outlook, and I think I'm happier for not sharing it.

[ethanbond]

I don’t think “people tend to do things at higher quality and higher frequency when incentivized” is some esoteric economic theory.

I never made the claim that paying server bills would produce great content.

I never made the claim “an individual human can only be motivated economically.”

Your strategy for personal happiness is unrelated to what actually works in the real world at scale.