Hacker News Reader

Comment by magicalist | Hacker News Reader

Nobody seems to be bringing up the questions inherent to a big company moving on this that will have to follow the "rules":

- Why would I ever let bing crawl my site if they aren't going to send any visitors to me?

- fair use of snippets has relied on them being brief and linking to the source. Lawsuits will be immediate.

I do love these imaginary scenarios where ChatGPT is going to find me the best air fryer, though. Where is that information going to come from, exactly? Barely anyone is making money writing reviews today, most sites are farmed content. What happens when even the ok sites' reviews are quickly scraped and put into the next model iteration? Bing is going to have to come up with some kind of radical revenue sharing too if they want anything written after 2023.

View on HN

If language models take over text content, content creators will flee even quicker into creating video content. There's already a trend where younger people tend to prefer video for being more "genuine", and now it might become a sign of "human made" for a couple years. Also easier to monetize, and easier to build parasocial relationships, so all around a plus for creators. Too bad I prefer text.

could it somehow get access to the subtitles and then use them to answer queries?

also i hope this comes to ecosia, would like to experiment and try it at least

Exactly, and many bots exist today to mine user videos for the automated subtitle information. In other words, there's no escaping GPT from learning from any kind of medium.

> " could it somehow get access to the subtitles and then use them to answer queries?"

It's not even necessary - computers are already excellent at understanding spoken words. Have you tried automatic captioning recently? Half the inputs to my phone are already voice, not text.

Video is a harder problem, but it's not too far behind.

I prefer text too but I feel like that's mostly because the videos are not information dense on purpose. They expand to whatever the youtube algorithm prefers at the time, which is about 10 minutes now. Ironically, tiktoks are more information dense but the search is completely useless.

I’m finding more and more that the information density isn’t there because the video content is actually just an infomercial for a “course”.

Nope, there are already several services transcribing the audio content of video so expect that to be ingested too. You’ve seen the video suggestions with timestamps in google search right?

Oh, I'm aware ofhow well video transcription works. Once the lower-hanging fruit are dealt with, video content will absolutely flow into language models. But still, the video component is a key differentiator that AI can't easily mimick right now (at least not to a level where we can't tell). So users that want a personal opinion instead of a GPT-generated text are likely to turn to consuming videos.

there are already custom AI avatars and text to speech, there are already people using GPT to create text and then using other services to create the audio and dynamic videos at scale

Exactly. Several of the highly ranked YouTube videos that were recommended to me recently were clearly made by some AI doing a mashup of imagery with some text spoken by some text-to-speech algorithm.

I think we're very close to the point that even video won't be confirmable to be genuine. If it could even really be said to be so now. (Instagram/TikTok are the most performative/contrived content platforms these days)

I think the push to video and away from text is a net failure for accessibility and usability, at least for reference use cases.

My example: as a woodworker, I'm often curious about the details of a particular joint or the usage of a particular tool. The great amount of content on YouTube is helpful, but it's incredibly inefficient to have to seek through a bunch of filler or unrelated content to get the answer I need.

Of course, that's "increased engagement" so I'm not surprised it's what is commercially more viable.

That sounds remarkably similar to how recipes are shared in blogs. There's a huge amount of story, and then at the tail end there's the recipe. It's all for engagement, but I'm never engaged. If I'm looking for a recipe, I want to know the recipe so I can make it. I don't care about what the blogger did last weekend or in college.

I read that the recipes are actually bullshit. Written by content farms eating instant noodles, not anyone remotely involved with a kitchen.

Google* how long to pressure cook white or brown rice and you’ll see widely differing answers. Like shots all over a dartboard. They can’t all be correct — it’s just rice.

I wonder if many of them care more about CPM rates and page visits than actual recipe accuracy.

  *or Bing, DDG, Kagi, etc if you prefer although I haven’t tried.

I would somewhat disagree with that. My household eats rice on a daily basis and the timings for different kinds of rice varies wildly. Basmati, Sona masuri, jasmine, risotto, jeera samba rice have very different water and rice measures. And that's just white rice! Other rice variations are a whole different ball game.

I strongly recommend the books Cooking for Geeks and The Food Lab. In both books, the authors explore a variety of different approaches and show their math.

> There's a huge amount of story, and then at the tail end there's the recipe. It's all for engagement, but I'm never engaged.

It's not about engagement, it's about copyright.

Recipes - in the form of lists of ingredients and the method - are not typically protected.

However, add a huge rambling story about how Grandma handed this recipe down to you when you were five and on holiday with her in $place, hey presto, it's protected.

It's not for engagement. Some sites have now a Jump to recipe button. It's for google that said that if you write normal text they will send you a ton of traffic. What people figured out was that unless you spam the recipe with keywords repeated at least 20 times, the google bot will not understand what the text is about. Maybe google was forced to do this, but that's how it works and it contradicts how they said it works.

That actually seems like a great use case for AI; identify all videos about (topic), differentiate between high and low quality ones (as preferred by you or people similar to you), abstract the information into conceptual videos or schematic diagrams as you prefer.

> That actually seems like a great use case for AI; identify all videos about (topic), differentiate between high and low quality ones (as preferred by you or people similar to you), abstract the information into conceptual videos or schematic diagrams as you prefer.

Q: Why would your $videoPlatformOfChoice allow a commercial AI bot to scrape boatloads of videos, abstract the information, then serve that information separately somewhere else .. possibly while serving their own ads(!)?

Scraping is legal, plus how will they even know?

May I suggest a simpler and smaller scope? An AI converting speech to text, extracting a bunch of still frames (or short video rolls) as illustrations (where relevant) and making it an ol' good readable article?

Then it can be fed to the search engines and those would do the rest of the job just fine.

I think that will just multiply clickbait and those making the most substantive contributions will be ripped off by SEO/content farmers.

Once AI can do all that with video, then we’re at about the point where automated video spam is too high also.

SponsorBlock is the response. It's a crowdsourced extension that labels parts of the video, like sponsor segments, highlights, intro/outro, etc. Very useful, you can skip through useless segments.

second order effects of this preference for video is how poorly video content gets indexed.

With text, searching of obscure things is cumbersome but possible. With video its impossible.

Meaning I, as a user cannot take the shortest path to my target content simply because of the medium.

I now default to looking for really old books on my topic of interest, or authoritative sources like textbooks and official documentation and then skim and weed through them to get to a broader understanding. Very often this has led to me on to better questions on that topic.

Online I prefer to look at search results from focussed communities, reddit, HN, StackOverflow, car forums, etc. I just never go to video for anything beyond recipes , quick fixes to broken appliances and kids videos.

(Old post, but you made a good point)

I finally realized what actually bothers me about shopping physically vs online these days is (a) the lack of "sort by price, ascending" & (b) the lack of ability to get a reference or "fair" price for similar items.

Similar, with video the key missing feature is deep search.

It's mind bogglingly sad YouTube didn't focus more on improving this after being acquired: they have all the components to build a solution! And it's a natural outgrowth of Google's dead tree book digitization efforts!

I assume it was harder than just relying on contextual signals (links and comment text) to classify for ad targeting purposes. Also probably why they also incentivized ~10 min videos over longer/shorter.

Which is sufficient for advertisers, but utterly useless for viewers.

It makes me cry that we're missing a future where I could actually get deep links to the portion of all videos that reference potatoes (or whatever).

So regressing to a fully oral culture... Odd times

But one that can be catalogued and relayed by robots.

The digital world is the native environment for the AI race we're creating. In that world us biological humans are relatively slow and inferior. And if this "handing the intelligence baton to machines" trend continues then "regression" to our more native communication forms feels natural and inevitable.

That's some interesting insight. Thank you. When I read your comment, I was envisioning us all sitting around fires in caves with animal skin togas talking about the latest HN post (which presumably was Carl scribbling down something on the rock wall).

Good, the less I have to see of their clickbait and the more time my competitors waste watching videos the better. Video has its uses and when it's good it's very very good, but most of the time it's terrible dreck that steals people's time using cheap emotional manipulation.

I've been thinking about training an ML model to detect those 'Pick Me!' poster frames that highlight the e-celeb presenter making some kind of dramatic reaction face and just filter them out of search results. This is partly what happens when SEO types combine with black box algorithms; the lowest common denominator content starts to swamp everything else, a kind of weaponized reversion to the mean.

These questions are constant. I do think you bring up relevant issues, but they aren't quite showstoppers.

Websites allow SE crawlers because (a) whatever traffic they get is better than not traffic (b) because allowing crawlers is default and doesn't cost anything and (c) google/bing don't negotiate. They are one, sites are many.

This has already played out in news. News outlets wanted Google to pay for content. Google (initially) responded by allowing them to opt out of Google. Over the years, they have negotiated a little bit. Courts, in some places, forced Google to negotiate... It's news and politicians care about news specifically. Overall though, there have not been meaningful moments where people got pissed off with Google and blocked crawlers. Not newspapers and not anyone else. Site owners being mad doesn't affect google or Bing.

What does matter to search engines is walled gardens. Facebook pioneered this, and this does matter to Google. There is, in a lot of cases, a lot less content to index and serve users. All those old forums, for example.

These are search problems, and GPT-based search will inherit them. ChatGPT will have the same problem recommending the best air fryer as normal search does. GPT is a different way of presenting information... it's not presenting different information.

RE: Lawsuits. Again, history. Youtube, for example, started off with rampant copyright infringement. But, legal systems were primitive. Lawyers and legislatures didn't know what to do. Claimants were extremely dispersed, and would have had to pioneer case law. Ultimately, copyright took >10 years to really apply online and by that point youtube and other social media was entrenched.

The law lags. In practice, early movers are free to operate flawlessly and they get to shut the door after them. Now that Google is firmly entrenched, copyright law serves as one of their trenches.

Incidentally, law seems like an incredibly powerful potential application for ChatGPT.

This is an extremely important point. Something like ChatGPT without attribution can completely kill the open web. Every company will keep their information in closed walled garden if no traffic is flowing through them . I don't see a scenario where something like stackoverflow can exist if no one goes to the site.

I think StackOverflow will exist and do well. 1st, it is source of information for ChatGPT itself so if there would be no new content then AI is going to implode too. 2nd, very often I skip top answer because it has some edge cases or simply is outdated. The answer comments often highlight such issues. I don't think ChatGPT could be trusted without verification, not in serious programming work.

On the first point, that is no guarantee that users will stay on the site. The AI is currently only using data from 2021 and earlier as far as I'm aware, and does so without feeling out of date. Before we see any significant signs of the AI imploding due to lack of new information, SO might well be long gone

I see Stack overflow as one of the problems here.

StackOverflow went along way in killing the Tech Blog, and the number of "right" but poor answers on Stack sites are at an all time high

Often the "best" answer on those sites is buried or even downvoted in favor of an answer that "just works" but may have security issues, maintainability issues, is out dated, etc.

In alot of area's I find Stack answer to be of low quality if you happen to have any indepth knowelege of that area.

Indeed.

They should be renamed to ShitOverflow, because that's how bad the quality is a lot of the time.

Maybe we can return to people sharing information/websites purely for the passion of sharing what they love, rather than the greed fueled mess we have today.

What this is going to allow is a way to flatten org-mode, which will massively expand the amount of people willing to use it. Put anything you wish into your own data collection, and you can instantly pull it up with a prompt. That service would then allow anonymized queries of other peoples data.

If we don't get AGI, the LLM that are starting now and don't have fresh data from people's queries won't be able to get going. The internet will quickly become stale. This will be sped up by the spam that the LLM will be used to create.

Walking through this scenario I don't see anyway for this not to end in a network effect monopoly where one or two services wins.

Oh gosh, maybe we'll actually have to pay for things, and we'll find that the market for the fifth random blog trying to make money off of free information using ads doesn't really exist. What a terrible world this will obviously be.

No. The weird thing is this idea that because you put ads on your site, you deserve money. Your ads are making the Internet worse. You probably don't realize this, because you most-likely use an ad blocker, which means you want people too dumb to use ad blockers to subsidize the web that you can use for free, but the current web is working well for approximately no one.

Would I pay $5 a month for StackOverflow if it didn't show up for everything I Google? Most likely. Would this be a better world? almost certainly. We tried the thing with ads. It sucks. I welcome our new AI search overlords.

Why would you want power centralized? Big corporations are never your friend.

Power is also centralized when most supposedly independent actors buy ads from the same large advertisers, and utterly depend on their income from those ads to do whatever they're doing.

Websites will optimise for AI eyes rather than Human eyes. Advertisers will pay to embed information in the websites that is read by AI, which subtlety makes the advertisers' products more valuable in the eyes of the AI. Then the AI would ultimately spit out information to users that are biased towards the advertiser's products.

That sounds like an incredibly difficult sell to the advertisers.

It isn't. IDK in the anglosphere, but in the hispanic world this already being done, and for years. It's platforms where you buy articles from websites (even some newspapers), and even more, you can share the cost of an article between a number of advertisers.

Of course the impact of this has been inmense and the spanish internet is filled with the same crap as the anglo internet, and trustable sites are piled under tons of noise.

I had to map a bunch of communities in spanish and post it in my blog because they don't appear in the search results anymore. Just to remind myself that they're out there.

I'm planning to do the same with blogs.

I guess we're going to rediscover directories and the problems associated with them, but currently the 'open internet' is a mess.

ChatGPT tools will just change how money flows and the incentives. Lots of spammers will get out of business, but many others will thrive. No ads, just deception.

This already exists in the US. All of the “PR news” sites are just paid PR releases. They make the product/company look good while spreading it over many sites to boost SEO and recognition but would also cover this.

We already know that advertisers aren’t willing to pay that much for “subliminal” advertising. People have been trying to do product placement in movies and shows forever and it’s never really taken off.

This seems factually incorrect. It's hard to find consistent historical numbers but what I can find implies pretty steady double digit growth over the last decade or two.

If you have good sources that say otherwise, I'd love to see them.

Product placement is everywhere. Next time you watch a movie or show, look for the clothing brands, computer brands, car brands, wine brands, etc. everywhere.

And think about sponsorships. From soccer to nascar, sports is covered with branding.

That's not subliminal, you're describing sponsorships (i.e. manufactured social proof).

"Subliminal" and "sponsorship" are totally orthogonal. One refers to the presentation, the other the business arrangement.

The entire concept of an Influencer is just a front for product placement. The difference nowadays is that people are actively looking for the commercials and ignoring the movie.

> "Bing is going to have to come up with some kind of radical revenue sharing too if they want anything written after 2023."

ChatGPT doesn't include anything written after 2021. I certainly wouldn't use it to find an air fryer. The results will be from over a year ago. I would want to see what the newest air fryer options are and it would be really important to have to up to date pricing.

AFAIK there is not a way to update a large language model in real time. You have to train on the entire dataset to do a meaningful update, just like with most forms of neural networks. For ChatGPT that takes days and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Every time.

It's great for explanations of concepts, and programming, and a few other things. But with the huge caveat that all of the information you're looking at is from one year ago and may have changed in that time. This really limits the utility of ChatGPT for me.

That’s a very solvable problem though. If Microsoft decides to integrate ChatGPT with bing, they have the resources to retrain the model on a more recent data set, and even do it somewhat regularly

You don't even need to retrain if you use retrieval transformers. That is the real revolution waiting to happen. Deepmind already unlocked it with RETRO, but I don't know why a public version hasn't been released - hooked into the live internet.

OpenAI have webgpt too https://openai.com/blog/webgpt/

OpenAI is already working on solving this

https://openai.com/blog/webgpt/

Neat! I've seen so many discussions of the cost of continually retraining ChatGPT with new knowledge (and the energy efficiency of that, etc.) but had a similar thought that you can probably use a GPT-like approach to do "next word prediction" for a command-based web crawler to gather up to date data and then use the GPT-we-already-have to combine/integrate found content using the classic next word prediction.

Sometimes I feel that what makes humans cool is that we (well, some of us!) have good internal scoring on when we lack knowledge and must go in search of it which makes us go down different branches of next-action-in-line.

Someone pointed out that the energy cost of training GPT is roughly on par with a single transcontinental flight. If so, I don't think this is a limiting factor in any meaningful sense - you could spend that much energy daily, and it would still be a drop in the bucket overall for any moderately large business.

I would imagine trying new datasets on daily basis wouldn’t be trivial ?

The bottleneck would be the number of workers on sites like mechanical turk available to create the datasets. Might take a few more years before amazon and facebook get enough third world countries to the point they can exploit their labour online to create daily training sets.

> Where is that information going to come from, exactly?

Manufacturers, with quality ranging from excellent to trash.

Consider trying to buy a 1K resistor at Digikey using their parametric search. Possible, but tedious and time consuming because you need a lot of domain knowledge to know what you want, and the technological range of "things with 1K of resistance" is extremely vast. At least its possible because the mfgrs are honest when Digikey imports their data.

Consider the opposite, consumer goods. 500 watt PC power supplies with random marketing number stickers on the same chassis ranging from 500 to 1200 watts. Consumer level air compressors and consumer level vacuum cleaners than plug into household wall outlets claiming "8 horsepower" or whatever insane marketing nonsense. Clothes with vanity sizing so a "medium" tag fits like a real world XXL. Every processed food in a store with a "keto" label is high carb sugar added garbage, much like happened with "organic" label in the old days (the employees at the farm, distributor, warehouse, and/or retail store level take the same produce out of one bin and put it in two places with different prices)

I think it will help when purchasing technical engineering type products but be an epic fail at inherently misleading consumer goods.

Maybe manufacturers could upload their design docs and ChatGPT could learn exactly what the object does and what its performance parameters are.

If you're trying to search for a specific resistor without the prerequisite domain knowledge, how will you be able to vet whether or not the answer given by a language model meets your needs?

Imagining that language models like gpt will ever be able to index up-to-date information is literally trying to apply the concept of "artificial intelligence" to a probabilistic language model. It's incompatible with what it's actually doing.

Put SEO into the picture and things get hairier. Incredibly realistic spam is about to go through the roof, so search engines will have an insanely harder time distinguishing between useful content and spam.

Making money from search traffic to your (presumably useful) site is going to get harder in a bunch of ways, due to generative models.

I don't see why this would be a copyright violation anymore than somebody learning something from multiple sources and reformulating what they learned into an answer to a question. As long as it isn't explicitly reciting its training data, there shouldn't be an issue of copyright.

> Barely anyone is making money writing reviews today, most sites are farmed content.

I'm sure ChatGPT will be able to write a bunch of terrible SEO prose that precedes the actual air fryer review (or worse, recipe) about how the author's grandma had an air fryer when she was young and remembered the great times with her grandma (etc), for roughly 95% of the text!

In all seriousness, being able to swerve all that terrible SEO content on reviews will always be welcome!

> Why would I ever let bing crawl my site if they aren't going to send any visitors to me?

I don't think it's up to you, legally speaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn

I mean, they could be nice and respect your robots.txt, but they certainly don't have to.

> fair use of snippets has relied on them being brief and linking to the source. Lawsuits will be immediate.

It's possible that fair use law will be expanded to cover this case, but as constructed the output of these models is generally fairly derivative of any specific original, and so probably protected under fair use. If it were spitting out exact copies of things it had read, it would probably be pretty easy to train that behavior out of it.

> I do love these imaginary scenarios where ChatGPT is going to find me the best air fryer, though. Where is that information going to come from, exactly? Barely anyone is making money writing reviews today, it's mostly farmed content. What happens when even those sites' reviews are quickly scraped and put into the next model iteration? Bing is going to have to come up with some kind of radical revenue sharing too if they want anything fresh.

I do agree with this, though. The LLMification of search is going to squeeze revenue for content creators of all kinds to literally nothing, at least if that content isn't paywalled. Which probably means that that's exactly where we're headed.

> I don't think it's up to you, legally speaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn

> I mean, they could be nice and respect your robots.txt, but they certainly don't have to.

That case was limited to the CFAA, but you seem to get the gist of what I'm saying when I specified it's different when it's Microsoft doing the scraping. If Bing starts ignoring robots.txt and data still start showing up in their results, all the early 2000s lawsuits are going to be opened back up.

> It's possible that fair use law will be expanded to cover this case, but as constructed the output of these models is generally fairly derivative of any specific original, and so probably protected under fair use.

Unless there's a reason for them to be considered fair use, derivative works are going to lose a copyright suit. And what's the fair use argument? If I'm the only one on the internet saying something and suddenly ChatGPT can talk about the same thing and I'm losing money as a result, there's no fair use argument there. Search engines won those early lawsuits by being transformative (index vs content), minimal, and linking to their source. None of that would apply here.

What GP means is that ChatGPT output is generally not similar enough to any _particular_ source document to establish the fact that it's derivative. Instead, it resembles what you'd get if you asked a (credulous and slightly dumb) human to read a selection of documents and then summarize them. These kinds of summaries are absolutely not copyright violations, even if the source document can actually be identified.

> ChatGPT output is generally not similar enough to any _particular_ source document to establish the fact that it's derivative.

Isn't this exactly what a court case would be trying to clarify? If so wouldn't assuming this be begging the question?

Sadly, seem like the decision in that case was changed. From your link:

> In a November 2022 ruling the Ninth Circuit ruled that hiQ had breached LinkedIn's User Agreement and a settlement agreement was reached between the two parties.

It wasn't changed, it's just that there's more than one issue at hand: the earlier decision was that hiQ didn't violate CFAA, the later one was that it did violate LinkedIn's EULA. The November 2022 ruling specifically states that hiQ "accepted LinkedIn’s User Agreement in running advertising and signing up for LinkedIn subscriptions" - keep in mind that LinkedIn profiles haven't been public for a while in a sense that logging in is required to view them, and thus to scrape them.

Hence why OP is saying that this all will lead to increase in paywalls and such, and a reduction in truly public content.

There exist other laws, jurisprudence, and even entirely different judicial systems besides those currently used in the USA!

My guess is your first point is exactly why Google hasn't done this yet. Their 'knowledge boxes' are already crossing a line that in general they felt nervous about crossing historically, but they don't go very far.

Google on the whole historically did not want to alienate publishers (and the advertisers that hang out on publisher content) and has avoided being in the content production business for this reason.

IMO this is the big problem with the internet as it exists today - there is no incentive for producing accurate, unbiased information and non-sensationalist opinions. My greatest hope for the future is that somehow we can incentivize people to produce "good" information for AI based assistants and move away from the rage/shock based advertising model that most of the internet currently uses. Personally I would rather pay a few cents for a query that produces valuable results and doesn't put me in a bad mood than pay with my time and attention like we do today. AI systems will absolutely need to be able to identify the training sources with every result (even if it is coming from several sources) and those sources should be compensated. IMO that's the only fair model for both image and text generation that is based on authors and artists work.

> problem with the internet as it exists today - there is no incentive for producing accurate, unbiased information and non-sensationalist opinions.

I think this problem is orthogonal to the internet as medium, though I’ll concede that it has proven to be the biggest amplifier of this dynamic.

Correct (or correct as far as humans know, or most likely correct, etc.) costs money to create. False or completely made up information costs nothing, plus has the potential upside of sensationalism, thus further increasing its ROI.

Agree with your point about developing more incentives for correct information and penalties for false.

It's not just that there's no incentive for that, but there's a very strong incentive to do the exact opposite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

How I’d like to weather this storm:

1) Everyone cryptographically signs their work for identity confirmation.

2) there exists a blockchain whose sole purpose is to allow content creators to establish copyright date on a digital piece of work.

3) a public that uses the two items above what evaluating the reputation of an artist.

This seems to make a lot of sense. The artists themselves also have an incentive to be blockchain validators/miners, thereby reducing the need for token payout, and the subsequent speculation that comes with tokenization (I think).

How does that prevent anyone from using ChatGPT to generate new (supposedly human-written) content?

It doesn't; however, the signature in your hypothetical doesn't correspond to a known/trusted author.

You don't need blockchain for cryptographic timestamp

I've got some reading to do[1]. Thank you for the head's up.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping

A language model that provides answers with sources (which could be found using a traditional search engine that searches the corpus that the language model is trained on) would be very useful and would also allow it to link directly to the source material. The trouble would be in finding the exact sources since the output of the language model is unlikely to be verbatim but current search engines can deal with imprecise queries fairly well so it's not an intractable problem. A very well curated data set would help this immensely.

I'd be super interested in a language model that was able to synthesize knowledge drawn from a large corpus of books and then cite relevant sections from various titles.

>- Why would I ever let bing crawl my site if they aren't going to send any visitors to me?

They will send at least some visitors, which is better than the zero visitors you will get from bing if you block it.

>- fair use of snippets has relied on them being brief and linking to the source. Lawsuits will be immediate.

Yes and microsoft has lawyers, who have presumably determined that the cost of fighting these frivolous lawsuits is not overwhelming.

> Why would I ever let bing crawl my site if they aren't going to send any visitors to me?

You tell me! It's your site. If you want money maybe you should charge for your content? And honestly, the web that Google presents is just so terrible that I don't want to visit your site, unfortunately. And, maybe it's a price worth paying.

>Why would I ever let bing crawl my site if they aren't going to send any visitors to me?

Google already does this with featured snippets

Which were already highly unpopular with websites, but at least have some attribution.

So we’re speculating that the Bing chatGPT implementation will crawl public websites, answer queries strictly from its training data, and present unattributed snippets?

That does sound both flawed as a search engine and objectionable to site operators. In addition to not being announced or even rumored to work that way.

So, maybe the implementation is different from that model?

Their plan is to use Neuralink to pull all the information from people's brains.

> Why would I ever let bing crawl my site if they aren't going to send any visitors to me?

How can you refuse? The only way I know would be to require an account, but even then they could bypass it.

Major search engines honor robots.txt

If it becomes standard to have such a file and it effects their bottom line, could they disregard it?

If the file that were previously honored as consent to use the copyright material is subsequently ignored, wouldn't the content creators take the indexers to court for copyright infringement?

Yeah, not helpful. But long winded.

There are many air fryers on the market and the best one for you will depend on your needs and preferences. Some factors to consider when selecting an air fryer include size, price, features, and overall performance. Some popular air fryers to consider include the Philips Airfryer, the Ninja Foodi, and the Cosori Air Fryer. It might be helpful to read online reviews and compare the features of different models to find the one that works best for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com