Comment by ImPleadThe5th
4 days ago
I wish archive websites would take a harder stance on LLMS.
Liberating/archiving human for humans is fine albeit a bit morally grey.
Liberating/archiving human works for wealthy companies so they can make money on it feels less ritcheous.
All those billions of dollars of investments that could be sustaining the arts by appropriately compensating artists willing to have their content used, instead used to ... Quadruple the cost of consumer grade ram and steal water from rural communities.
The horse already left the barn. Every major AI lab scraped the entire internet years ago. Asking archive sites to "take a harder stance" now is just performative. The training data is baked in. The only real question left is whether we want the knowledge accessible to individuals too, or only locked inside corporate models.
That is just not true. These AI scrapers are hammering all types of sites and causing their bills to explode.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-faces-flood-of-ai-bots-...
The nature of archives is that they are constantly updated.
That's a good point I suppose.
I guess I'm just kind of sad. LLMS appropriately sourcing material could have been such a boom for artists in a way. I guess I feel like it was a missed opportunity for some mutual benefit.
Would have been a really interesting at least.