I lean to the side of AI progress over copyright, though I fear AI becoming stupid when incentive for original works maybe goes down, so I think society needs to figure out some social contract at least, like subsidies to keep new content flowing.
For instance blogs will stop posting if chatbots in search grab all the answers directly from their sites bypassing all ad revenue.
I don't know why you would have that concern. LOTS of people write because they just want to share. Now broaden it out to include speech. LOTS of people talk - it's what we do.
Progress in AI will happen because humans like to express themselves. The challenge isn't copyright. It's figuring out how to capture the vast content that just isn't getting captured. Also, this is really only an issue for "new intelligence" - if you really think there is such a thing. Personally, I do not. I think like 99% of all human intelligence is in the out of copyright corpus.
> LOTS of people write because they just want to share.
The blogging scene from the early millennium is now a shadow of its former self, and one of the most often stated reasons for abandoning blogging is “my site just wasn’t getting many views any more”. In a world where AI generated content abounds, there will be even fewer eyeballs on whatever one shares and therefore less feeling of reward for sharing. Moreover, the people still blogging are often loading their content with referral links, because in an economy full of glamorous influencers, even ordinary people are tempted to seek some financial reward for sharing beyond the mere pleasure of it. Less eyeballs due to AI competition means fewer people clicking those referral links.
Yah, blogs are already a rounding error in the corpus, and that has nothing to do with llms. Those of us who are still blogging are already doing it in spite of ~waves hand broadly at the world~.
I'm not truly sure that llms mean less eyeballs, though. They produce mediocre content in an arena where high quality content matters. There's already a massive pile of crap on the internet; it's already all about surfacing the relevant and the interesting bits.
> LOTS of people write because they just want to share.
You just gave up the "for a living" group, who arguably produce overall better content (of course there are exceptions), and focused on hobbyists. I'd call that a self-defeat.
But not all and not most produce intellectual content for a living. And those who do you seem to be ok with ditching because if I read you correctly it's a small loss.
That's not what I was trying to convey, so I'll try again.
Humans generate a massive amount of natural language, and 99% of it never gets someplace where GPT/LLM training can consume it. If we can capture just a couple percent of that, then there will be no need for GPT/LLM to make use of content from those who don't want their writing to be consumed.
For instance blogs will stop posting if chatbots in search grab all the answers directly from their sites bypassing all ad revenue.