upvote
> But now I'm really reluctant to give more stuff to the free web. Because the fact that it gets scraped and added to a pile of training data to later be monetized really rubs me the wrong way.

The thing is, people were scraping and monetizing other people's websites long before the current LLM fad. The difference is the magnitude of the problem.

> And I can see why maintainers of sites like this, or other free but incredibly useful resources might start to get irate at that.

Those who object to the scraping fall into several camps, but the biggest complaint I am hearing is that it increases both maintenance costs and time. In other words: it sucks when people are using your work in a manner that you find offensive, but it goes beyond that by doing actual harm.

reply
A change in quantity can become a change in quality.
reply
> The thing is, people were scraping and monetizing other people's websites long before the current LLM fad. The difference is the magnitude of the problem.

People doing it with a couple of machines and residential proxies versus Anthropic doing it with 2 data centers worth of machines.

Scale matters.

reply
> But now I'm really reluctant to give more stuff to the free web.

I feel the same way too. But guess what, all the code you did not publish gets into the training corpus anyway (when you gave Codex or whatever full read access to your filesystem).

reply
That's only if one is stupid enough to give an LLM access to their computer. Don't do that, it's incredibly irresponsible security wise.
reply
I open source as much software as I can because I want the models to train on it and get better at it!
reply
I feel the same about my old blog articles.

I used to rank pretty well trashing crappy credit cards and encouraging people to switch to better options, then Google decided that 10 results for the card issuers website was better.

Same shit when I manually wrote proto-gethuman posts on calling telecoms/banks/etc (and also pushed visitors to try an Indy ISP or credit unions), then Google felt it was better to drive users to the telecom’s website that wants you to do anything but call them.

Please do train on my pre-LLM gold!

reply
Do you have any active sites or social media with your recommendations?

(I never publish my recommendations because they seem to complicated for people. Like using 30 GB plan/$10/monthly from T-Mobile for data and then using Tello for $10 plan for voice/text. This would require a 2 esim/sim card phone. I am currently using a Moto G Power 2024 phone from eBay $90/new, which was better than the $200 slightly used Pixel 6a from Swappa. Most people would just save the hassle, get a Galaxy phone with a phone contract.)

reply
This attitude makes zero sense to me. You benefit from the "training data" just like everyone else does. If you don't, that's a problem with you, not a problem with AI models.

AI solves exactly the meta-problem you describe: "I had a problem and needed to write a one-off doo-dad utility program to solve it." Now you can do something with your time besides writing pointless one-off doo-dads.

As for monetizing the training data, (a) it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to generate the weights, so why begrudge the companies that made the investment and did the research necessary to make it happen?; and (b) rest assured, whatever your doo-dad does, an open-weight model like GLM 5.2 can generate it for free using your own hardware.

So you don't have to pay anyone in that case. Well, except nVidia, I guess. Point granted there.

reply
It does make sense. When podgietaru wrote their doo-dad programs, I guess they made their work available for humans to use and they didn't mind giving their work away for free. Some other person might say "I'm giving my work away free, I don't care if humans use it or AI, for any purpose". Both are legitimate choices, each according to their own.

As for "everyone benefiting from training data" - sure, but the AI companies are not investing Billions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts, it is towards one and only singular goal of making profits (at some point). People might be sympathetic to these AI companies if they at least behave decently - they take everyone's work (text, software, fiction, music, images, videos...) without paying a penny to anyone. If they take everyone's work for free, they should give away anything that is built on that work also for free. This is before we even get to environment, privacy, hammering sites by not respecting robots.txt etc issues.

If I stole all veggies from your garden but spent time/money/effort making a meal, I should at minimum share it with you for free, no? Even if I spent my own money making the meal, it was made from stolen raw material...

reply
I don't know how else to explain it. It doesn't feel the same to have my contributions smushed into a linear-algebra machine? For me, the incentive was the idea that my contributions might have directly helped someone. That absolutely does not feel the same when I think "My answer has modified the back propagation of a Machine Learning training run."

It doesn't have to make sense to you - I just believe that I'm not exactly alone in this thought.

Now apply this to Art, free stories, writing etc. It feels bad to have your free contributions hoovered up and monetized. It doesn't feel particularly fair or ethical to me. And it'd make me double think before making something free and publicly available.

reply
Understood, there's certainly nothing invalid about your point of view here. It's just not one that I personally can come to terms with.

I've spent a lot of time in your shoes, wasting time on busy-work needed to accomplish a larger goal (and absolutely sharing the results freely, over multiple decades)... and I don't miss that part of it one bit.

reply
> Now you can do something with your time besides writing pointless one-off doo-dads

Writing software one-offs to scratch an itch was historically one of my most enjoyable past-times. AI trivializing that has been a very real theft of joy in my life.

Solving the actual problem was never the point, it was just motivation to do geek-out and craft some code.

AI is rapidly diminishing many interesting hobbies (coding, art, music, writing).

Having more free time when there's nothing fun nor exciting to do with it isn't really a benefit.

reply
This is such a sad worldview. Life without any challenges. Every problem immediately solved without learning anything.
reply
| Now you can do something with your time besides writing pointless one-off doo-dads.

...thus eliminating all the tedious chatting, relaxing and making friends that people were previously forced to do while waiting for elevators.

reply
...thus eliminating all the tedious chatting, relaxing and making friends that people were previously forced to do while waiting for elevators

That also makes no sense, but I don't know what else I should have expected.

reply
[dead]
reply