[chii]

> People who produced the works LLMs are trained on are not compensated for the value they are now producing

the value being extracted via LLM techniques is new value, which did not previously exist. The producer(s) of the old data had an asking price, which was taken by the LLM trainers. They cannot make the argument that since the LLM is producing new value, they should retroactively update their old asking price for their works.

They could update their asking price for any new works they produce. They also have the right to ask their works not be used for training, etc. But they cannot ask their old works to be paid for by the new uses in LLM in a retroactive way.

[GolfPopper]

>The producer(s) of the old data had an asking price, which was taken by the LLM trainers.

This is... blatantly untrue?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/microsoft-remove...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/libge...

[mbgerring]

> They could update their asking price for any new works they produce. They also have the right to ask their works not be used for training, etc.

Someone else already pointed out that many works used to train LLMs were stolen, but also, it’s unclear whether this is true, either. Can you opt out? Because copyright should have been enough to prevent a company from stealing and profiting from your work, but it wasn’t in the case of every existing LLM.