[nsedlet]

I do think there will/should be a reckoning about the how training data is acquired and attributed. For example, LLMs could attempt to cite sources, or share ad revenue fractionally with all the sources of that inform the response they're presenting.

I think that as the magic wears off it's becoming clearer that LLMs are more like fancy search engine UIs than intelligent agents. They surface, remix, and mash up content that everyone else created, without the permission of the creators.

That doesn't mean there won't be economic fallout. Spotify may have figured out legal streaming - but the music industry is still much smaller than it was in the 90s

[JohnFen]

> For example, LLMs could attempt to cite sources, or share ad revenue fractionally with all the sources of that inform the response they're presenting.

Neither of which address my problem: how do I share with people generally without sharing with AI?

[tjpnz]

At the risk of sounding flippant you might print your articles out onto sheets of paper and send them to interested parties by mail.

I'm sure a standard not unlike robots.txt will emerge. That might give some comfort, although I would remain sceptical given that many crawlers refuse to honour it.

[magoghm]

I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to share with AI. Sharing with AI makes it easier for other people to benefit from what you shared.

[nsedlet]

Yeah it feels like there should be a legally enforceable ai.txt

[june_twenty]

> but the music industry is still much smaller than it was in the 90s

And we'll all better for it. No need for making people millionaires just because they can hold a tune.

I'm sure AI voices will give a voice to the masses.

[anonymouskimmer]

It was nice when local radio DJs had platforms to feature local artists. This is becoming rarer as DJs disappear, and the audience fewer as they move to algorithmic feeds.