Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tony Stubblebine (coachtony@me.dm)'s status on Monday, 27-Mar-2023 01:39:30 JST Tony Stubblebine

   Is there any benefit to the author of letting a for profit LLM like OpenAI spider and consume their writing? I can’t think of any.

   If that’s true, then should we be rethinking Creative Commons licenses? I’m wondering if the current one we use at Medium is obsolete.

   At least with something like Google there was an exchange of value: contribute to their search results and get traffic back.

   • Embed this notice
     Nelson Minar (nelson@tech.lgbt)'s status on Monday, 27-Mar-2023 07:09:16 JST Nelson Minar

     in reply to

     • Anil Dash

     @coachtony @anildash I agree, the individual authors are getting nothing (or in some cases harmed, as in "make art in the style of <living artist>". I'm postulating that culture as a large will benefit. It's a fraught argument but I think worth consideration.

     Valerie Aurora repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Tony Stubblebine (coachtony@me.dm)'s status on Monday, 27-Mar-2023 07:09:16 JST Tony Stubblebine

     in reply to

     • Nelson Minar
     • Anil Dash

     @nelson @anildash

     Yeah, I get it. We are projecting the future and there is no way to know who is right because we aren't going to A/B test this.

     I lean more toward "let's have a Butlerian Jihad" but I don't fault you for leaning the other way.

   • Embed this notice
     Tony Stubblebine (coachtony@me.dm)'s status on Monday, 27-Mar-2023 07:09:17 JST Tony Stubblebine

     in reply to

     • Nelson Minar
     • Anil Dash

     @nelson @anildash well, not financial. But as we know there are many ways to be compensated including status and influence. I don't think there is any meaningful exchange back to the author.

   • Embed this notice
     Nelson Minar (nelson@tech.lgbt)'s status on Monday, 27-Mar-2023 07:09:18 JST Nelson Minar

     in reply to

     • Anil Dash

     @anildash @coachtony does there need to be direct financial benefit here? Not every use of creative material needs to be a transaction. The theory of Creative Commons was to literally make a commons of creative works. Why is it a problem if software is also benefiting?

     (I'm motivated by maximizing the current boom in AI research and development. I do worry that these systems benefit large commercial players right now but am hopeful that will change.)

   • Embed this notice
     Anil Dash (anildash@me.dm)'s status on Monday, 27-Mar-2023 07:09:19 JST Anil Dash

     in reply to

     @coachtony It does seem very much like the post-Flickr era of open licenses largely became fodder for exploitation in the same way that most of open source software exists largely without any support from the extractive big tech companies which rely on it. Perhaps the requirement should have been equity, not attribution.