Hacker News Reader

Comment by nologic01 | Hacker News Reader

> How is that any different than providing free labor to help someone learn how to build the next [X] so that they can more effectively dominate?

Its an absurd equivalence. A human can never "dominate" no matter how much they learn.

Training for free a closed, for-profit private enterprize infrastructure that will eventually make your preferred free collaboration platform obsolete is like the ultimate of naivete (or vested interest).

View on HN

All content on Stack Overflow is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-SA. So, in theory, the community could create a new Q&A website and import all the questions and answers from Stack Overflow. But that doesn't overcome the network effect, I admit.

It's not really an equivalence, if you remove the sensationalism, it's just a point that the free work is already being provided.

Put more succinctly I'm making two points: 1) The free work is already being done. 2) StackOverflow has been crawl-able since forever.

You'd have to address both of those problems before the concern that you're raising becomes relevant. Banning the posting of new generated content doesn't address either of those things.

Ok, it makes more sense now. But you need to consider the significant incremental benefit to the model training process when creating labels exactly where the model underperforms.

The baseline you mention is already an issue that is being debated hotly.

My comment was that humans reviewing and fixing new AI content is exactly not what should be done in the current circumstances.

>A human can never "dominate" no matter how much they learn.

Somewhere an autocratic leader is laughing at you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com