So you want them to pay the host websites for scrapping their publicly shared content? Or give attribution to how this is if forming it's opinion?
It's narrow take I thin, let us say someone read my comment or blog, among others, and used that shape their understanding, and then by doing that, they offered better consultation, then should that person pay back every author, book and blog they read?
I don't understand what's the argument here, and also the same methods is used to give open source models..
[delayed]
Bear in mind that like many toxic blooms, once the investment hysteria feeding them dies out they will die also.
- Companies using investment funds to play the Ai Agent lottery will run out of funds
- Less tokens will be demanded, causing AI companies to raise prices to pay for overheads
- Bubble pops.
I'm willing to have a public bet that the number of tokens (or whatever the equivalent is) would increase by more than 10x in the next 3 years.
(for equivalency of tokens I'd use something like "tasks done by AI")
Cool, bet on it: https://polymarket.com/event/ai-bubble-burst-by
Meanwhile NVDA go brrrrr.
I find it sad that people don't generally think about non zero sum possibilities.
I think it comes from a misreading of Marx because Marx considers value coming from Labor which is purely zero sum.
In my bubble within friends and family, practically everyone uses AI and has fun using it and gets value out of it.
Parasite takes and gives nothing back, but clearly a lot of people are using those models, which the author ignored, so the entire premise is false.
There are many documented cases of parasites being beneficial to the host in some particular situation while being harmful overall.
So your entire premise is false.
This is a fallacy and it is known as non-central fallacy.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...
Oh, so they are Robin Hood stealing from poor OSS developers and website authors and giving to the rich owners and their $200-per-month users.
So they are either parasites or Robin Hood?
parasites or reverse robin hood, which is the same thing
The models might benefit you, but they do not benefit the Host websites that were scraped to feed you a result.
So you want them to pay the host websites for scrapping their publicly shared content? Or give attribution to how this is if forming it's opinion?
It's narrow take I thin, let us say someone read my comment or blog, among others, and used that shape their understanding, and then by doing that, they offered better consultation, then should that person pay back every author, book and blog they read?
I don't understand what's the argument here, and also the same methods is used to give open source models..
University graduates might benefit you, but they do not benefit the authors of the textbooks that were borrowed during their education.
Enough with the IP maximalism, it's perfectly fine to extract non-copyrightable ideas from copyrighted works.
Yes they do, they pay the authors excessively, up to $200 per semester per author.
> At least we get stilted prose, images that look like Pixar rehashes, and code nobody understands.
Parasites are mostly bad for health.
The use of the models completes a self-improving feedback loop which keeps feeding the parasite and helps it grow even stronger.
But that's not the definition of parasite. People are using it because they are gaining value.
ah so symbiosis
drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it;s impossible to say if its bad or not,