[febin]

Is this "deep research" tool exploiting open knowledge creators, using their work without compensation?

[tmnvdb]

How is using public information "exploitation"? A human researcher with Google would do the same.

[hnisoss]

So its fine for OpenAI to effectively sell your CC BY-NC content to others?

[scarab92]

Are you exploiting open knowledge creators, using their work without compensation?

[febin]

The creators are aware that a human is using this, can we say the same for AI, does it have their consent?

[handfuloflight]

Then consent is granted by transitive property because these AI are yielded by humans.

[hnisoss]

Yea but guy paying closedai to get "insights" that basically copy-pasted content from my blog is definitely violating my blogs copyright, and in the end no coin comes to me either. What about that?

[handfuloflight]

Could you provide an example where OpenAI outputting verbatim quotes actually constitutes the copyright violation? Because mechanically retrieving relevant quotes seems analogous to grep/search - the copyright status would depend on how downstream users transform and use that content. Like how quoting your blog in a technical analysis or critique is fair use, but wholesale republishing isn't. This suggests the violation occurs at usage time, not retrieval time.

[protocolture]

You exploited my eyes by making me read this comment. Wheres my compensation.

[febin]

I see many are offended, but I am genuinely asking a question.

I want to understand does this mean it's ethical for anyone to create a research AI tool that will go through arXiv and related GitHub repo and use it to solve problems, implement ideas like cursor.

[rapjr9]

It is also an agent, so it is using you without compensation for your work.

[hnisoss]

Of course. It's a child's play for SamA et al.

[johnneville]

would it be open knowledge if it required payment to access ?