Hi there, if you don’t want me to hit you, please carry this sign that says “please don’t hit me” with you always. Otherwise, I can’t possibly be held responsible if I hit you. Because it’s in my nature to hit you. I can’t live without hitting people. It’s just who I am and what I do. Thank you for your understanding in this delicate matter.
@aral I'm genuinely curious what you perceive the solution to this is? They modelled it after an already in place model that has worked seemingly well. I'd postulate that if companies took web presence and other technical matters more seriously by hiring and paying people better, this wouldn't be a problem or even a conversation.
@aral well okay then. I mean you're not wrong regarding the opt-in, I suppose I just wish we lived in a world where the capitalistic approach of things could be ignored, it would allow us to act and move in a direction we agreed would ultimately be better for humanity, rather than relying and hoping on political leaders and c level execs to be ... well, not how they are now.
I also think the competative nature of the LLM models is a step in the right direction, Claude exists.
@aral So essentially no one (especially not OpenAI) wants to write a responsible webcrawler or a webcrawler protocol more tractable than a robots file ? This is how we get global indexers which, if not enforced into the public domain, inevitably result in a stolen data market (the basis of the modern web).
@aral Arguably, opt-out search indexing helped the web become what it is today, but maybe it’s time to make these things opt-in, and granularly so. i.e., I opt-in to allowing indexing for the purpose of search but not for the purpose of LLMs. I’m not sure how that would work in practice. Technically speaking, it would be easy, but it all depends on everyone playing by the rules.
@ramsey@aral there should be a web standard for content licensing. As in, a standardised way of signalling permissible freedoms around content.
What is interesting is how data and information that's unlicensed is considered ok to be used freely by companies like "Open"AI but stuff like art, software, etc. are copyrighted with all the rights reserved to their authors by default.
Historically, search engines counted as Fair Use, and they provided a service to the public that didn’t harm the copyright owner’s position in the market. It would be interesting to see them challenged again, given how Google’s use of copyrighted material has given it an advantage.
@pixelcode@tripleo@ramsey@glitzersachen Sure, let’s limit it for everyone, not just individuals and I’m all in. The moment I can take whatever I want from a trillion-dollar corporation and do whatever I want with it, I’m happy with them doing the same (it still won’t be equal because they still have a trillion dollars to do what they want with it whereas I’m scraping together rent every month but, hey!)
With search, (at least in the beginning!) everybody won.
Websites wanted to be found
People wanted to find sites
Search engines made that happen and could turn this into a business
win-win-win.
Of course that fell apart when search engines provided more and more info themselves. But at that point people and sites were so dependent on them that there was no practical way back.
@ramsey@glitzersachen@aral to come back to your point: yes search engines also crawl the web and copy stuff and transform your data into something different, but for the first decade (or so), the purpose was "showing that good result, bringing people to your doorstep".
I really think that the early search engines were a net-positive for society. (again, yes, this has shifted dramatically since then!)
Add comment