[skeledrew]

Users don't seek content for the attribution; that's extra noise, unless there's reason to contact the attributed. And given that many websites offer an inefficient flow to content, made of ads and/or unnecessarily animated things for example, the LLM is merely improving the experience for the user.

[johnnienaked]

"Why look at a sunset when you can read a summary about one from an AI?"

-Someone, somewhere, eventually

[jerf]

The whole conversation here is about incentives for the content creators, not the user.

Yes, as a user I'd like everything served to me on a silver platter, for free, on demand, and completely and 100% aligned with my interests exclusively with no thought given to anybody else... but that's not a realistic world. In the real world, if the content providers have no reason to provide content, they won't.

I kind of hate the connotations of "content provider", that neutral term that implies that it is all "content" that can just be measured in megabytes or something, but I mean the full richness here of the term, individual producers, small businesses, big business, everybody. Even my personal site, if I'm not getting something out of it, however intangible it may be, I wouldn't do it. I'd be mighty pissed if I lose a job someday because I get accused of just spewing out LLM content that the LLM can only spew out because of my own original ideas/formulation of ideas being on the internet.

[skeledrew]

There are many content creators out there who create and share with the only incentive being for fun and/or interest. However their content is in most cases down-ranked due to a lack of SEO, because no time to waste on that silliness when there are better things to do. The internet is merely reverting to its previous form where such strings-free content was the order of the day, instead of the highly SEO'd spam that's primarily aimed at getting ad impressions or whatever nonsense that degrades user experience.