Hacker News Reader

Comment by visarga | Hacker News Reader

Copyright should die. It was already standing on just one foot since internet made mass copying trivial. File sharing has been going on for decades. Now they want to extend copyright to restrict AI which doesn't even replicate the source text, and instead aims to answer a user question by combining information across multiple sources.

We have seen other models that don't rely on protection flourish - Wikipedia, open source, scientific publications, open weights models, and even fashion. They all are permissive, and thriving.

View on HN

Apply that idea to the journalism perplexity stole, which obviously has value. Forbes worked for months to create a story only to watch an IP launderer garner more financial reward.

I would agree if newspapers stopped reporting on social media posts, for which they don't ask permission or pay royalties. Not to mention that most articles are just rewording press agency news releases and other publications.

And isn't Google stealing the content from the whole internet and making a huge profit from it? Why the double standard. Perplexity has links to sources too.

If you pay attention to what I wrote vs what you wanted to read, you'd see the false equivalence is yours.

Pay-gating copyrighted content is different indeed from public-posted social media content. In the instance of the Forbes theft, Perplexity offered links to other copycats, but never the original [costly] reporting.

And how do you think all the content creators (either mainstream or independent) are going to keep churning quality content if they get one order of magnitude less traffic than before, while the AI "answer engines" sell premium subscriptions to provide answers based on scraped content bypassing paywalls?

AI engines are the future of search and task solving. They will absorb a lot of information from their users, much more than old search engines, such as problem solving strategies, what works and what doesn't.

Just consider the fact that chatGPT as 180M users and probably solves 1B tasks per month. It collects contextual data, guidance and feedback on a massive scale, going into the next model with some PII and copyright mitigations.

We will go to LLMs for advice because they will have the best data, refreshed by hundreds of millions of users. LLMs will naturally collect the most up to date feedback from the world, they don't even need to do anything, just wait for users to copy paste the relevant data and provide iterative guidance.

Right, and how will LLMs determine what data they are "collecting" was written by themselves or other AI's. Eventually all AI content will be AI content derived from AI content. Is that a good answer?

How did you determine that chat gpt "solves 1B tasks per month"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com