Comment by kennywinker
1 day ago
> it was only a matter of time until rent-seeker(s) would come along and try to get it.
So, the people who helped create the valuable dataset are “rent seekers” now? Must be using a different definition of rent seeking than any i’ve heard.
Foundation didn't create the dataset, just the framework for volunteers to do the work.
Yes, and? Could the dataset have been created without the framework?
The employees of the Wikipedia foundation did not create the dataset, though they definitely contributed to the infrastructure behind it. Sam Altman (and the OpenAI employees) contributed even more to OpenAI's continuing success (and that of their industry). Both groups are still rent-seekers, as they are attempting to profit off a market position which was developed under different auspices.
Oh, i don’t think I realized you were calling wikimedia rent seekers - not just the employees.
I guess that does vaguely match the description of rent seeking. But given that the alternative is handing the AI companies the wikipedia data set for free, so they can rent-seek with it - i’m not sure I care about that.
Did you see the subthread that the motivation behind this union does not seem to be collective bargaining over compensation, but in response to management's decision over personnel issues:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48665062
Indeed, the OP does not mention increased pay at all, but rather "concerns over transparency, trust, and the organisation’s future direction."
You can go ahead and call that rhetoric, but you are also reading in intentions that do not seem to match reports from the ground.
>” You can go ahead and call that rhetoric, but you are also reading in intentions that do not seem to match reports from the ground.”
This just seems like standard union rhetoric, like when they talk about quality, or caring about the company’s clients. If the union gets concessions on transparency, and less than a 5% raise for the first year, I’ll do my best to come back to this thread and post a retraction. I don’t think I’ll have to do that.
2 replies →