[visarga]

> Nothing you write will matter if it is not quickly adopted to the training dataset.

That is my take too, I was surprised to see how many people object to their works being trained on. It's how you can leave your mark, opening access for AI, and in the last 25 years opening to people (no restrictions on access, being indexed in Google).

[Morromist]

"On reflection I have started to worry again. In 10 to 20 years nobody will read anything any more, they just will read LLM digests. So, the single most important task of a writer starting right now is to get your efforts wired in to the LLMs"

You're words will be like a drop in the ocean, an ocean where the water volume keeps increasing every year. Also if nobody reads anything anymore what's the point?

[heavyset_go]

Most people value their time and work and don't want to give it away for free to some billionaire so they can reproduce it as slop for their own private profit.

That's to say, most people recognize when they're getting fucked over and are correct to object to it.

[mbgerring]

People who produced the works LLMs are trained on are not compensated for the value they are now producing, and their skills are increasingly less valued in a world with LLMs. The value the LLMs are producing is being captured by employees of AI companies who are driving up rent in the Bay Area, and driving up the cost of electricity and water everywhere else.

Your surprise to people’s objections makes sense if you can’t count.

[chii]

> People who produced the works LLMs are trained on are not compensated for the value they are now producing

the value being extracted via LLM techniques is new value, which did not previously exist. The producer(s) of the old data had an asking price, which was taken by the LLM trainers. They cannot make the argument that since the LLM is producing new value, they should retroactively update their old asking price for their works.

They could update their asking price for any new works they produce. They also have the right to ask their works not be used for training, etc. But they cannot ask their old works to be paid for by the new uses in LLM in a retroactive way.

[GolfPopper]

>The producer(s) of the old data had an asking price, which was taken by the LLM trainers.

This is... blatantly untrue?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/microsoft-remove...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/libge...

[mbgerring]

> They could update their asking price for any new works they produce. They also have the right to ask their works not be used for training, etc.

Someone else already pointed out that many works used to train LLMs were stolen, but also, it’s unclear whether this is true, either. Can you opt out? Because copyright should have been enough to prevent a company from stealing and profiting from your work, but it wasn’t in the case of every existing LLM.

[joquarky]

> not compensated for the value they are now producing

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is the basis for this right.

Does the old way still promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts sufficiently to stifle the new way?

[mbgerring]

So stealing is fine if you convince investors it fits their definition of progress (firing human workers)?