Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicbou | Hacker News Reader

People are happy to share their opinion, but don't expect people to write long, well-researched content about anything.

In my case, the content I write involves hours of research, and correspondence with a network of experts I have built up over 5 years. I constantly update and revise that content.

The website on which it's hosted was also developed with great attention over the same period.

I don't think that I'd keep doing if I was deprived of revenue, and from the kind feedback of readers. I certainly couldn't do it full time.

View on HN

+1. There is no more incentive to post things on the internet if this is how things are going to be. If all the effort you put into something can be used to bolster a LLM that will then be used to make money off that info, no one would want to write. If I have a blog, I'd write for humans and not so some "Open" "AI" company or Micro$hit can come and claim my work as their own. People will sooner credit LLMs for being "smart" than acknowledge the upcoming massive Original Content vaccuum.

If GPT could do the same research - reading a bunch of primary sources and condensing and summarizing the information - why wouldn't we want to have GPT do that rather than having a human do it?

We don't employ roomfuls of people to solve math equations by hand to calculate trajectories anymore, because the computer can do that faster.

If GPT can't do research and produce content with the same level of accuracy as you (which, so far, it can't) than surely people would be happy to continue compensating you to do so.

Sometimes I am the primary source. I got the information from calling various government offices and interviewing people. I write with a certain amount of specific context that a LLM does not have. To illustrate my point, an LLM might summarise legal texts, but only a lawyer can tell you the odds.

I tried ChatGPT. I asked it questions about the work I do, and it was about as correct as the cheapest copywriter. The writing was very good (if verbose), but the information was shallow but credible bullshit.

There is no efficient market that allocates money to the best products. In reality, the winner takes it all.

Therein lies the problem. If people find credible bullshit before valid information, they might stop there. It deprives them of valid information, and me of revenue. There is plenty of credible bullshit already. GPT just makes it cheaper to produce.

This is a self-correcting problem.

If people consume "credible bullshit" and can't tell the difference, without consequences, then your thoughtful work isn't as valuable as you thought.

If on the other hand people consume BS and it comes to bite them in the ass (through reduced socioeconomic status and, ultimately, reduced reproductive success), then competing approaches become viable.

We may not be around to experience it – a variation of "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" – but you may find comfort in the fact that Nature has a way of optimizing away cruft. Most often through repurposing the obsolete-but-already-existing system for another function, and failing that, through atrophy and death.

> then your thoughtful work isn't as valuable as you thought.

Why is this type of dismissal so prevalent on HN? Do you really believe that?

In the real world, core infrastructure depends on code that does not raise enough money to buy groceries. Do you remember OpenSSL and Heartbleed? The entire internet paraphrases the same few nuggets of original research, with affiliate links slapped on top.

The market has been irrational for as long as I have been alive, and it's getting more irrational every year. When will the invisible hand of the free market correct things? Why do you insist that we live in a libertarian utopia where this statement holds any semblance of truth?

Sounds a lot like the current setup is already pretty fucked when it comes to rewarding creators. So why limit people who are driven to create by restricting what they can and cannot use?

And just to be clear, people do write long, well-researched content for free all the time.

I'm all for holding Microsoft et al. to the same copyright laws they expect others to follow when it comes to their own works, but ultimately it would be in societies interest to not limit creators. Sure, maybe there are areas where we need to find ways to encourage creators but let's not do that by limiting everyone else.

Do I believe that when others choose to not buy your work, and buy something else instead and are happy with their choice, your output wasn't as valuable to them as you maybe thought?

Yes, I do.

In fact, I see that statement as nearly tautological.

I also believe that throwing people in jail if they don't value the same things as you is wrong.

Both of which are largely orthogonal to my original point though – which is that determination of value is a self-correcting process over evolutionary time spans. But I understand you wanted to shake your fist at the sky, in these difficult times.

Same with your OSS reference – I happen to publish several open source packages, used by thousands of companies around the world, which in total bring me about grocery-level income (~€500/month, pre-tax). So what?

>Do I believe that when others choose to not buy your work, and buy something else instead and are happy with their choice, your output wasn't as valuable to them as you maybe thought?

If the "AI" community chose not to buy nicbou's work and chose to use materials in the Public Domain instead, that's fine. If the "AI" community chose not to buy nicbou's work and chose to use Radim's work instead under terms agreeable to Radim, that's fine.

But that's not what happens. What happens is the "AI" community chose not to buy nicbou's work and chose to use nicbou's work anyway. That's where the problem is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com