> I feel it is the honourable thing to reference where ideas come from.
Sure, I’m not disagreeing.
> Attribution exists so that we can understand the impact that we have on the world.
Again, sure.
> I refuse to be gaslit that LLM's poor facsimile is a positive net outcome for the individual creator or humanity.
I’m not sure who’s trying to convince you of that, but I hear you.
I only intended to address a specific statement, which was:
> If you now make blog entries on new ideas, it will be consumed and regurgitated as new ideas with no attribution or benefit to the original author.
My point was that this isn’t new. This has been happening long before LLMs. People have always taken others’ work, repackaged it, and passed it off as their own. The only thing that’s changed is the scale. That doesn’t mean it’s ideal or that it shouldn’t be addressed, just that it’s not some new phenomenon LLMs have introduced.
Once you put something on the internet, you’ve always run the risk of it being reused without credit or in ways you may not have forseen. If avoiding that is the goal, then the safest move would have been to never publish online in the first place.
As an example, just a few months ago, I found out a vendor lifted code from multiple open-source projects, stripped the BSD licenses, and passed it off as their own for a “custom” software job. No LLMs involved, just plain old fashioned plagiarism.
> I don't think that anyone should be discouraged for not wanting to help Jafar become an even more powerful and oppressive dictator.
Fair enough. I completely get not wanting to contribute to Meta, OpenAI, Microsoft, etc. If you don’t want your content feeding into LLMs, that’s a valid stance, and I respect it.
Sure, I’m not disagreeing.
> Attribution exists so that we can understand the impact that we have on the world.
Again, sure.
> I refuse to be gaslit that LLM's poor facsimile is a positive net outcome for the individual creator or humanity.
I’m not sure who’s trying to convince you of that, but I hear you.
I only intended to address a specific statement, which was:
> If you now make blog entries on new ideas, it will be consumed and regurgitated as new ideas with no attribution or benefit to the original author.
My point was that this isn’t new. This has been happening long before LLMs. People have always taken others’ work, repackaged it, and passed it off as their own. The only thing that’s changed is the scale. That doesn’t mean it’s ideal or that it shouldn’t be addressed, just that it’s not some new phenomenon LLMs have introduced.
Once you put something on the internet, you’ve always run the risk of it being reused without credit or in ways you may not have forseen. If avoiding that is the goal, then the safest move would have been to never publish online in the first place.
As an example, just a few months ago, I found out a vendor lifted code from multiple open-source projects, stripped the BSD licenses, and passed it off as their own for a “custom” software job. No LLMs involved, just plain old fashioned plagiarism.
> I don't think that anyone should be discouraged for not wanting to help Jafar become an even more powerful and oppressive dictator.
Fair enough. I completely get not wanting to contribute to Meta, OpenAI, Microsoft, etc. If you don’t want your content feeding into LLMs, that’s a valid stance, and I respect it.