upvote

points

by lelanthran2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Aurornis3 minutes ago|
next
[-]
> Their idea is that you pay a fee to access any information that was freely available.

An LLM containing the information doesn’t take away from the book being available at the library.

It’s an additional way to access the information. A company charging a fee for it doesn’t stop you from going to the library if you want to.

> Your idea is tearing down of fences, their idea is gatekeeping. The two ideas are incompatible.

Making information available in an LLM does not gatekeeping you from going to the library.

Information can be available in multiple places.

reply
upvoteby baq1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Their idea is being able to get answers to questions which were difficult to answer before[0]. Of course they want to get paid for it. The information wasn’t available easily and not always[1] freely.

[0] among other things…

[1] more like ‘often not at all’

reply
upvoteby entrox1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Of course they want to get paid for it.

So should the original authors, no? That is, getting a share of that payment.

Something akin to the German GEMA could work, an entity that levies a usage fee on behalf of all copyright holders and re-distributes to its members, but on a global scale.

reply
upvoteby inetknght1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> So should the original authors, no? That is, getting a share of that payment.

Should they? Yes. Will they?

Well, do LLM model builders pay for any copyrighted work so far?

reply