I think in the long run, it is in the interest of AI companies to incentivize creators to create high quality data! Not paying them their fair share will likely decrease the volume of high quality data available (or make it much less accessible). Unless these companies already have developed another architecture that can learn much more from the same dataset, the lack of new high quality data will be a problem for future larger models!
> Not paying them their fair share will likely decrease the volume of high quality data available
It won't. Thats not how capitalisam works. If high quality data became unavailable, then companies will be created to fix the problem. Only they look quite different from NYT.
Just like how Torrents didn't kill movie industry. These are lazy arguments made by people who want to make money through lawsuits.
Also I can guarentee you even in worst case, humanity would survive just fine without those high quality content just like it did for the past 50K+ years.
What you should actually be concerned about is stupid law suits like this that can prevent progress.
AI could help humanity solve more pressing problems like cancer.
By getting caught up in silly law suits like this and delaying progress one can make a case that you bring more suffering to the world.
Merry Christmas everyone! Thanks everyone for you great contributions to the community and thanks to the dear moderators for the great job they are doing!
It is the first time, to my knowledge, that there is strong evidence that indicates it could actually happen! (The evidence being the rapidly changing climate and our inability to adapt quickly enough)
The Plague of Justinian killed between 40-60% of the eastern Roman Empire in a decade. Pretty sure that disrupted some supply chains and yet humanity and civilization persevered.
TFA is simply a laundry list of early 21st century faddish conceits to describe the eternal brokenness of man. I liked it better when it was called it original sin. “Micro plastics”, “forever chemicals”, etc. aren’t evidence or argument, they’re an incantation repeated as part of a cultural rite.
I think then arXiv would have to deal with mantaining the tech stack and providing the presumably much higher server capacity to serve the more varied web pages that would result, so it seems like a tall order. arXiv already has an experimental integration with Papers with Code [0], which I guess provides similar results for the reader, though the authors have to figure out their own web hosting.
Second that. Something I put out recently had an (admittedly video heavy) webpage that had 1TB of traffic over the past month. Cloudflare handled it for free for me, but at ArXiv’s scale it’s bound to be a problem.
