Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mbgerring 113 days ago
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.
2 comments
chii 113 days ago
> 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.

link
GolfPopper 113 days ago
>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...

link
mbgerring 113 days ago
> 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.

link
joquarky 112 days ago
> 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?

link
mbgerring 112 days ago
So stealing is fine if you convince investors it fits their definition of progress (firing human workers)?
link