[BDPW]

Appropriate compensation is a non-issue? I have the impression many people jump on the hate-EU train for no other reason than there's many comments reinforcing it.

What do you really think about this case in particular? I'm pretty curious where this comes from.

[zb3]

Who should receive the compensation? If I want to know the answer to a particular question and most search results point to SEO garbage which doesn't even answer it, then who should be compensated and for what? If those SEO garbage websites are to be compensated, doesn't that just incentivize more garbage?

[BDPW]

I don't know. I don't really care about the details in this case, I just don't really get the dismissive attitude that often surrounds things like this. Do you think this is not something that is worth looking into if it happens at such as large scale?

Just do be clear, I use genAI all the time for finding info and answering questions, so my browsing habits changed as well. I'm the kind of person who this case would indirectly be about. But don't you think that it's valuable to look at how do we compensate people who create content when their content is being used by genAI.

Many people seem to have the feeling of 'oh it's too late and those websites were garbage anyway (whatever that means), who cares'. Don't you think that's a bit of a silly way to go about this?

[zb3]

> But don't you think that it's valuable to look at how do we compensate people who create content when their content is being used by genAI.

But why should we compensate them simply because their content is being consumed by AI? For me, any kind of compensation MUST take relevance into account, otherwise we'll reward quantity and not quality, thus quality won't be preserved.

Maybe the answer is to actually NOT do any compensation like that, instead focusing solely on attribution so that it's in people's interest to reward select creators manually to keep the content valuable.

[sajithdilshan]

Appropriate compensation for what? The summary is generated on the publicly available information.

[BDPW]

If using data from those websites in a way decreases their visitors or something similar then I think there's an argument to be made for that. I don't know the details to case but just because something is publicly visible doesn't mean that you can just do anything you want with it.

[Aloisius]

Every major news site in Europe is full of articles full of "The New York Times reported that [summary]" so I'm a bit confused as to why, all of a sudden, it's a problem.

Newspapers have been doing this for at least a century, while news radio and news broadcasts have done it since their inception.

[sajithdilshan]

There is no guarantee that a website would get a visit if there was no AI summary. Also you can do anything you want with public domain information. That's the whole point of it being public. Otherwise it should be licensed or copyrighted content.

[Timon3]

Almost every news article you come across is copyrighted, and is not public domain.