Hacker News Reader

Comment by whywhywhywhy | Hacker News Reader

The world you’re hoping for will put all AI tech only within the hands of the established top 10 media entities, who traditionally have never compensated fairly anyway.

Sorry but if that’s the alternative to some writers feeling slighted, I’ll choose for the writers to be sad and the tech to be free.

View on HN

“Feeling slighted” is a gross understatement of how a lack of compensation flowing to creators has shaped the internet and the wider world over the past 25 years. If we have a problem with the way top media companies compensate their creators, that is a separate issue - not a justification for layering another issue on top.

YouTube had made way more content creators wealthy than the NYT. Writers are not going to be paid more after this ruling either way.

Has the NYT made even a single content creator wealthy? Journalists there make less money than an average software engineer.

It's in the realm of possibility, lots of people found work post vox and buzzfeed too but i wouldn't classify it as the work of the NYT. "Real" creatives and content creators seem to embrace AI or at least grudgingly alter their own works, the OP I'm replying to would be cheering YouTube for suing openAI on the behalf of YouTubers everywhere, despite it having no bearing on reality.

The main objectors are the old guard monopolies that are threatened.

Have you been a creator on YT? Do you know how much an average creator gets paid? Did you know that it and other modern platforms like Spotify artificially skew payouts towards the richest brands? If not, then please let’s not make any claims about wealthiness and “old guard” monopolies here.

Gadzooks! You're right! If only NYT had realised the secret to success was spewing out articles reacting to other articles reacting to other articles, they would all have been millionaires!

Did you forget the /s or do you not think that a lot of journalism is indeed reacting to other journalists?

I think the introduction of an expectation for compensation has generally brought down the quality of content online. Different people and incentives appear to get involved once content == money, vs content == creative expression.

I’m a creator myself and see the two futures ahead of me and free benefits me in the long term more than closed.

The tech can either run freely in a box under my desk or I’ll have to pay upwards of 15-20k a year to run it on Adobes/Google/etcs servers. Once the tech is locked up it will skyrocket to AutoCAD type pricing because the acceleration it provides is too much.

Journos can weep, small price to pay for the tech being free for us all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com