On a more human level, I think it's bleak that someone who makes a blog just to share stuff for fun is going to have most of his traffic be scrapers that distill, distort, and reheat whatever he's writing before serving it to potential readers.

I don't think it's bleak, just the opposite.

If someone writes valuable stuff on a blog almost nobody finds, that's a tragedy.

If LLM's can process the information and provide it to people in conversations where it will be most helpful, where they never would have found it otherwise, then that's amazing!

If all you're trying to do is help people with the information you've discovered, why do you care if it's delivered via your own site or via LLM? You just want it out there helping people.

Because attribution, social recognition and prestige are among the many reasons why people put the information out there, and there is nothing wrong with any of them.

This is why I care if my ideas are presented to others by an LLM (that maybe cites me in some % of cases) or directly to a human. There is already a difference between a human visiting my space (acknowledging it as such) to read and learn information and being a footnote reference that may or may not be read or opened, without an immediate understanding of which information comes from me.

If you want attribution and prestige, then publish your stuff in an actual publication -- a journal, a magazine, whatever. Go on podcasts, speak at conferences, and so forth.

Publishing on a personal blog is not the path.

LLM's aren't taking away from your "prestige" or recognition. Any more than a podcaster referencing an idea of yours without mentioning you is. Or anyone else in casual conversation.

I can't believe the hypocrisy of a guy with 76029 internet points (that's a big time investment, would be a shame if someone trained an LLM on it) pretending to not understand that people want recognition for what they say, regardless of where they say it.

Are there journals who discuss about personal life and perspectives? Or a big publication about clever homelab configuration? Or the millions of other topics people discuss and publish? Publishing a website is a perfectly fine way to put your ideas out there and expecting to be acknowledged by those who read those ideas.

And yes, a podcaster talking about someone's idea without referencing it is an unethical behavior.

What a bleak view of the world.

In the grand scheme of things, I guess it's good to have an impact, even an indirect one, but come on, we're talking about human beings here.

Even if someone were to do it out of sheer passion without a care for financial gains, I'm sure they'd still appreciate basic validation and recognition. That's like the cheapest form of payment you could give for someone's work.

I don't understand why "actually, you're egotistical if you dare to desire recognition for stuff you put love and effort to" is such a common argument in those discussions. People are treated like machines that should swallow their pride and sense of self for the greater good, while on the other end, there is a (not saying YOU in particular did it) push to humanize LLMs.

For me, the point is that the person who has put in the work then has some rights to decide how that information is accessed and re-used. I think it is a reaosnable position for someone to hold that they want individuals to be able to freely use some content they produced, but not for a company to use and profit from that same content. I think just saying "It's public now" lacks any nuance.

Ultimately these AI tools are useful because they have access to huge swaths of content, and the owners of these tools turn a lot of revenue by selling access to these tools. Ultimately I think the internet will end up a much worse place if companies don't respect clearly established wishes of people creating the content, because if companies stop respecting things like robots.txt then people will just hide stuff behind logins, paywalls and frustraing tools like cloudflare which use heuristics to block malicious traffic.

> the person who has put in the work then has some rights to decide how that information is accessed and re-used

You do, but you give up those rights when you make the work public.

You think an author has any control over who their book gets lent to once somebody buys a copy? You think they get a share of profits when a CEO reads their book and they make a better decision? Of course not.

What you're asking for is unreasonable. It's not workable. Knowledge can't be owned. Once you put it out there, it's out there. We have copyright and patent protections in specific circumstances, but that's all. You don't own facts, no matter how much hard work and research they took to figure out.