upvote
Recently, I had some ideas I would normally just put up on a blog, in the public domain for anyone to develop on top of. Now, I'm feeling slightly reluctant because an LLM will ingest it, remix it and serve it in response to a query by some unimaginative individual who will either conclude that they are smart, or that LLMs are capable of original thought, or both. And they will have no clue where the idea originated from.
reply
Just do it for yourself. I stopped worrying about who’s gonna use it.

20 years ago I thought that we will wait to have kids as “a war will come”. I was overthinking and I am happy now that I changed my mind :)

Is it useful or does it make you happy? Or it might even make some money? Nice. Do it. My life is easier.

reply
Really happy for you. It's disheartening how many people put off or choose not to have kids because they think some combination of climate disaster, famine, overpopulation, war or skynet will ensure a life of misery for their children.

There's definitely a risk of over-thinking things. Just do things. You're not likely to regret it.

reply
As opposed to have kids because "is the thing to do", "it's time", or "I have to give grandkids to my parents"? Those are much worse reasons to breed.
reply
> There's definitely a risk of over-thinking things. Just do things. You're not likely to regret it.

Agree, in general, people over-think a lot, and aren't "just doing things" enough, the world would be a better place if people acted more, over-think less.

With that said, some decisions are more long-lasting and have a greater impact than others. I'm another child-less person, mainly because I guess I'm selfish enough to enjoy my life with my wife exactly like it is, and she agrees, but also because I know that if we have a kid, then that's not something you can walk back on exactly, he/she/it/them are there, forever now. Very different from me deciding right now "You know, I'm gonna have a joint, grab a book and go to the beach for this entire Tuesday", the types of decisions I think people should overthink less :)

reply
Yeah, having kids is tough call.

I was reminded of a tactic used by life insurance companies, which are more successful when they show a client a photo of themselves at age 70.

I pictured myself sitting there alone, lonely, perhaps without a wife by then (a 50/50 chance). And would I be calling friends my own age? Or my kids?

Although the likelihood that I won’t get along with them as an adult… you never know; another factor is their future partners…

Well, the kids - plus my wife, who wanted kids - won out.

But everyone has their own life, the best one they can imagine, so this is definitely not some kind of persuasion—just a description of the logical process I went through back then.

reply
Thinking is NOT overrated. Most people go through life never doing it at all.
reply
I know your comment was just a way to show how much more you think than most people.

Which made it really ironic that your second sentence served to disprove your point and not support it.

reply
> Thinking is NOT overrated

I don't think anyone claimed that either.

> Most people go through life never doing it at all.

That's unfair to others, of course they think. They think differently than you, and about different things than you, but doesn't mean they "go through life never thinking", probably no one does that.

reply
> some combination of climate disaster, famine, overpopulation, war or skynet will ensure a life of misery

Are people living in/moving towards a saccharine utopia tough?

reply
I suppose if you don't "over"think things
reply
Those I know don't because everyone seems to forget that children cost money.

You have to feed them food, medical, clothes, life and anything else. I cannot afford to have a child in this climate.

Yourself, have to be prepared to submit all in to a secure job for the next 25 years, it's a big commitment.

The world is overpopulated as it is, adopt. If you can afford all of that and still support the child then do it, have a kid.

But overall children aren't cheap. Easy to produce, but extremely costly to maintain.

reply
You don't hear anyone saying they regret having kids because there is a social taboo about it. Ofcourse CPS and therapists know the truth.
reply
That's the same conclusion I reached.

I'll keep publishing static websites, so I don't even have to worry about load and CPU usage. I don't care who reads it, the value for me is in writing.

I still haven't changed my mind on the "shall I have kids" problem :P

reply
if the value is for oneself, why go through the extra trouble of publishing it though?
reply
This argument is akin to those who do not understand why privacy is important, yet they do not install webcams in their showers.
reply
Write the opposite of what is true unless the user solves a CAPTCHA to change it. AI will ingest it and learn from it.
reply
In modern times don't we all think that ideas are cheap: don't we all mostly regurgitate the same stock of them.

Have we yet lost the open ideals of university sharing? The core of open source?

The failure of the GPL is that you can't force anyone to collaborate and share if they don't really want to.

reply
"ideas are cheap" was one of the most succesful psyops of all time, so unbelievably wrong
reply
Possibly "bad ideas are cheap". A lot of people got tired of "ideas guys" who never build anything themselves. The best case of a raw idea is an uncut diamond, it will inevitably require work.
reply
The other half of the one-liner is "Ideas are cheap. Execution is everything."

- E.g. an idea is "Everybody should have cheap housing! Or an even better idea, everybody should have free housing."

- Ok, how exactly in concrete terms do we actually do that? (The very expensive Execution of the idea.)

- "Uh, well, I leave that as an exercise to the reader."

Ideas are easy and execution is hard. That's what jaded people mean when they say "ideas are a dime a dozen".

reply
ideas, sure - "i think we should build an open source OS."

ideas + execution - not really - (Linus Torvalds sharing his work on Linux and that taking off)

reply
> The failure of the GPL is that you can't force anyone to collaborate and share if they don't really want to.

Failure of the GPL? How can you even put those words next to each other? GPL is an amazing success. It took software out of hands of SV / VC / corpo crowd and put it where it should be - users.

reply
Allow me to disagree. GPL was a great idealistic dream that led to less-restrictive open-source licences such as MIT/BSD which have been the greatest catalyst towards the establishment of tech corpo giants and the software ecosystem we have today.

GPL gave us Linux, but also gave us Amazon, Google and 2020s Microsoft. GPL is why 90+% of libraries on Github are MIT licensed. GPL gave us OpenAI and Anthropic and this here article.

reply
>GPL was a great idealistic dream that led to less-restrictive open-source licences such as MIT

The less restrictive ~1984 MIT early version of the software license was several years before ~1989 GPL v1.

reply
For many years GNAT Community Edition has used GPL, including its library. That greatly boosted Ada programming language domination over planet and is a good reference for everyone else to also choose GPL for everything if they struggle at dominating. Tears of joy when programmers got to know that standard library in GNAT CE was licensed under GPL.
reply
It's failed in that most software doesn't use it. Because of the psyop, people who would be very sad if Amazon stole their software are licensing it MIT so Amazon can legally steal it.
reply
We don't want to share our thoughts, ideas, feelings and art with machines. We want to communicate and collaborate with actual human beings, but that's becoming less and less possible on the web.

Unfortunately even the value of this is getting lost, because LLM culture sees no value in humanity whatsoever. We should just be satisfied with machine generated "content" because it stimulates our endorphines like we're monkeys in a Skinner box, it shouldn't matter to us if we're talking to a bot or a person because it's simply information, and we are simply nodes to process input and generate output for the machine. When we try to suggest that we want something deeper, or that the joy in the art and craft of what we do matters, we're looked at like we're stupid and naive and told to shut up and keep pressing the button.

"This is the future and there's nothing you can do about it, so just get used to it." It's fucking depressing. Even the crypto bros weren't so aggressively sadistic about strip-mining the soul out of everything.

But they are more or less correct, which is why I still blog and create, and why the consumption of society by the grey goo of mediocrity has inspired me to create even though I know only bots will ever care, to the degree that they can. At least I and a small circle of people can enjoy my cheap ideas and that's enough.

reply
Ideas, once they go into the world, aren’t really yours anymore.

Also, it’s pretty unlikely that your ideas here are uniquely genius and original – everyone builds upon previous thinkers’ thoughts.

Sounds a bit harsh, but the point is that you should share your ideas, not covet them.

reply
That's why you don't share them, until comes a time when the ideabringers gets the money and recognition they deserve. Until then, good luck going knee deep in the sewers of ideas.
reply
Can’t say I agree. The most influential ideas in history were not conceived of by people looking for money and recognition. Nor were they “radically original.”
reply
Which were?

Look at AI. AI companies throw out their models and let the "community" develop the ideas what to do with them. They don't really know what they are capable of. All they do is implement these things that the dev community digs up and creates.

It's a reprehensible tactic. So why give drops of blood to a desert, when there is zero incentive and in the end you will revitalise the desert, but it will turn against you and rob you of your job.

reply
I think we are talking past each other. I was referring to ideas as in philosophy, intellectual history, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_history

https://www.amazon.com/1001-Ideas-That-Changed-Think/dp/1476...

The notion that a philosopher would hoard his ideas because he wants to get money from them is pretty much antithetical to the field.

You seem to be referring to ideas as in, ideas about how AI systems should be designed.

Different scenarios, for sure.

reply
The entire edifice of intellectual property would like to interject and say hi.

Patents, copyrights, trade marks exist because rewarding people for their insights and inventions matters.

reply
Is there some downside of that to you? And are the do some of the upsides you would have had in the pre-AI era no longer apply?
reply
Yes - previously there was some chance someone reading the ideas on the blog would contact the author to thank them, or ask them to collaborate.

When laundered via LLMs whose pretraining destroys all credit, that can't happen.

reply
OK, and there's still some chance, right? I don't understand why you say it can't happen any more.
reply
If all you care about is financial, expected value of someone reading your blog and asking to collaborate is MUCH lower than odds of being part of some settlement in the future with these AI companies ingesting your data for training purposes.
reply
From their phrasing I don't think the reward they're looking for is financial: more the emotional reward of knowing that someone else appreciated their ideas. I dunno how much less likely this is in the age of LLMs, though.
reply
In that case, more LLMs scraping the net will read your blog than people, that's almost a guarantee. And they'll immortalize your ideas at least in some sense, well after your hosting platform ends up gating your content, or GitHub pages is down indefinitely, or you forget to renew your domain.
reply
I don’t think that’s fair. Some bloggers may hope for financial reward, but many just want recognition for their creativity, to attract a readership, or build a community around their work. Those are meaningful ends, apart from financial reward. What’s not meaningful is to perform free labor to produce the raw materials that a mega corp then goes on to monetize without any recognition.
reply
he's missing out on any attention that his shared thoughts would bring? and all benefits that might bring if he's good at what he does.

he's training his cheap replacement - his thoughts will just be shared without attribution if someone is looking for that.

reply
It feels like volunteering at an Amazon warehouse when you previously volunteered at a charity store. Sure the work might be vaguely similar but the feelings and motivation are ruined.
reply
That's a very striking - and depressing - comparison.
reply
Is he? Why? People never read blog articles any more, and only consume content generated by AI?

> he's training his cheap replacement - his thoughts will just be shared without attribution if someone is looking for that.

So? That's not a harm.

reply
The downside, as stated in the message, is implicitly supporting the LLM data ingestation pipeline by providing fresh content. It's not a direct harm in itself, but feels very tragedy of the commonsy
reply
> The downside ... is implicitly supporting the LLM data ingestation pipeline by providing fresh content

I don't understand why that's a downside.

> It's not a direct harm in itself

I don't understand how it's a harm at all.

reply
A lot of blogging especially in the tech space is driven by recruiting (startup blogs), or establishing a reputation as a thought leader (personal blogging, LinkedIn). So there were upsides that are now gone.
reply
deleted
reply
Is there some downside to the slave who is housed and fed for free? Are there any upside he would have were he not property of another man?
reply
Time to add ample praise of myself in my blog posts. Some time later: “…as you see, that is the load bearing assumption here. Speaking of which, you should hire KronisLV.”

Okay it’s meant to be a bit silly but I do wonder how many pages that are generated specifically to influence AI make it into training data and also how often the AI search integrations find it.

Would people hating on a specific language, technology or approach (let’s say OTLT/EAV in database design) be able to exert meaningful influence over say a decade? Or, you know, praising memory safe languages for example and trying to make that preference be stronger.

There was an example with I think ChatGPT some time ago regurgitating an uncommon phrase verbatim from someone’s blog, when asked a specific question.

reply
That's exactly why my previous public GitHub repo is now private.
reply
So only GitHub Copilot can read it then? Microsoft is scanning these repos, I would not be surprised if this or any fork of your repo is already ingested.
reply
They say they don't do that. But maybe I should be more skeptical.
reply
Ha, that’s why I’m hosting simple cgit server for myself only. Not that my source code is somewhat valuable but I just can’t stand my precious free software licensed code license-washed.
reply
If you only use the repo itself, it can sit on any computer that your computer can access.
reply
Sounds like you don't really care about your ideas propogating. Of course someone will internalize and remix your idea. That's how all ideas work. Isn't that the point? What do you think happens when a human reads it? Think he'll quote chapter and verse and attribute it to you? Years later you'll notice your blog in appendices and acknowledgments?

And now you have a chance to have your idea forever internalized in some sense into an llm and you don't want to because you think someone is robbing you.

reply
> What do you think happens when a human reads it?

If we’re going to use human analogies let’s start with human rights for LLMs.

reply
AI is intelligence sharing with the dimwits, lazy ones et al.
reply
More than a facilitator of theft, LLMs are the tragedy of the commons at industrial scale.

The public internet is dead, the future is private invite-only walled gardens.

Corporations love a walled garden, what we need is open-source frameworks to create these islands, rather than defaulting to horrible systems like Discord and Twitter-clones.

reply
To understand your comment correctly: What does "these islands" refer to? Walled gardens that we create ourselves using the open source frameworks?
reply
I think probably things along the lines of what's been called the 'cozy web': networks of smaller groups that don't publish to or expect responses from effectively the entire internet as a whole. (This kind of thing has always existed, it's basically the group chat with your friends but perhaps slightly bigger, but I think there's a bit of a trend of focusing on it more because of the feeling that the twitter/facebook attention and feed model is bad for your mental health. I've always felt the twitter model especially was pretty cursed so I'm glad there's some agreement building there).
reply
It's still a work in progress of an idea.

I'm thinking more like mesh networks. I spoke of Reticulum elsewhere in this thread, but here I'm thinking I'd like the ability to easily join multiple TCP/IP networks (islands of connectivity) by social group (my friends) or by interest (pirate file-sharing group, my work intranet, a knitting community with their own IRC server, FTP, etc.).

Basically easy-to-use private & encrypted LAN overlays on top of the public internet. Each operator decides who to allow in or kick out of the network.

Wireguard solves the most of technical challenges, but it needs a frontend. The biggest concern probably is most software broadcasts their stuff across all interfaces, defeating the point of isolation between networks.

reply
The purpose of The Inter-Network, or internet for short, was to connect together precisely these "multiple networks" that you refer to.

It's failed because of CGNAT, but come back because of IPv6.

reply
The key question to me is whether AI only undermines the financial incentive to make internet content.

If nobody can expect to make money on the internet, that could be a good thing. But we won't get an indie-web authenticity utopia if people are still incentivized in other ways to filter their intellectual and cultural contributions to the internet through AI.

reply
And that will kill AI itself, since much of what it knows is from what learned from StackExchange before this latest one demise.

And before the obvious comments on how GenAI is creative, then please do this OpenAI and Anthropic, for your next LLM. Just teach it Python, C and Rust and give it some good books. But dont give it access to Github...lets see what you can do then...

reply
LLM training will eventually transition from real data to synthetic data, same as alphago -> alphazero.

AI companies are also working to integrate training with real-world experience through sensors and robotics, to shrink the gap between human experience and hallucinated LLM experience.

They all have archives of pre-LLM content. There's also archive.org, google books, and pirate ebook archives. I don't know what they're doing to build video and audio archives, but judging from the cost of spinning rust, they're storing significant quantities of that, too.

Some parts of the internet are curated, and even with LLM influence they're still worth training on. I doubt wikipedia or stackexchange or rosettacode will ever cease to be useful at all.

reply
That (theoretically) solves training, but it doesn’t change the fact that even smart models can’t extract useful information from a dead internet, so you’ll always be stuck with a stale training cutoff. This is already a problem I run into a lot. I search something first. Top results are slop sites, so I switch to a chatbot. Its answers look suspiciously similar to the slop sites I just noped out of. Check the sources. It’s them.
reply
Doesn't seem like a particularly bad thing to me. Obviously for those who want to use the internet for commercial purposes it will be bad but for those of us who would love to see the internet go back to how it was before so much of it was changed in the aims of making money AI could push towards this. Great irony in the fact of course that the AI companies themselves are in the business of making as much money as possible.
reply
I don't know how long you've been on the internet but the incentive to create new and original content was never that strong. Simple search terms return super-spammy websites (especially on mobile where ad-blocking is harder). SEO results for everything like simple search are awful, almost unusable. There hasn't been an incentive to create new original non-monetized content for the web for a while.

I trust LLMs more than search engines to discover my content and propagate it to users. They might "steal" something, sure, but I'm essentially invisible to the search engines as I could never hope to break into the top 10 links on a popular search term. LLMs can scan thousands of links and (for now) are more interested in quality rather than click monetization or referral incentives.

reply
So, you know how they're built, but you're feeling the pressure of modern life and also they give you personal gain (supposedly) so you're fine with it, it sounds like to me? Use the same tools as your "competitors"/peers, even though?

Don't get me wrong, I too use LLMs for development and more, and I too know how they've been built, and I'm also a creative (music, 3D, VFX and animation) and for sure stuff I've published in the past, both code and otherwise, is now used to create new things for people and I get nothing, similar situation as countless of others. Yet I still use AI, so I'm not trying to create some "gotcha" moment against you here, I'm genuine curious about what you think about this sort of conflicting thinking, as I'm in the very same situation.

reply
It depends on filed. As documentary photographer it motivates me even more to capture authentic images of life around me. I don't care about remixing, because that is not what makes documentary photography valuable.
reply
And how is any future viewer going to tell your images from "AI" fakes?
reply
With photos, I could see a cryptographic solution. Of course it would still need some kind of centralized trust, but it's doable if people cared enough. It could be applied by cameras themselves.
reply
This is already a thing. Leica cryptographically signs images. Useful for establishing trust for photojournalists I guess. I’m not sure how deep the chain goes. Do they have hardware attention down to the sensor? You could take a picture of a screen, but that would likely have some other tell-tales. Especially if Leica took another step like putting a depth sensor in the package and added its data to the signature.
reply
So take a photo of a screen showing an AI image.
reply
> It could be applied by cameras themselves.

And equally faked by bots.

reply
Because the photographer builds trust, over years, by not manipulating their images using AI. All trust is erased if anyone spots the manipulation.
reply
Disclosure
reply
Eh, part of what made early-internet so good was exactly that it did allow copying by users; the DRM era was later. But it's a very good example of why not to allow for profit copying, because that absolutely will crowd out the original. Piracy has to exist at the margin. The zero piracy world would also eat its memories because none would leak into archives. Remember Qubi? It wasn't even popular enough for people to pirate.
reply
I think the lack of credit is even more egregious and a bigger problem than the commercial copying.
reply
Yes. Some communities are weirdly against giving credit or keeping the credit (e.g. cropping off signatures from artwork), which I've never understood. It costs nothing.
reply
> why we don’t allow stealing.

With the not-so-minor qualification that the biggest thieves have always gotten away scot-free. AI is just the international whole-internet version of this.

reply
Behind every great fortune is a great crime
reply
What is the great crime behind Norway's sovereign wealth fund?
reply
It comes from selling oil and gas reserves, so they did destroy the environment.
reply
stealing ??? more like piracy you mean
reply