Is wiki in the red? Unclear, omi mean they ask for money donations, but someone in this thread claims they are set for a decade, I’ve seen people post something about how they are fine, and even donate a bunch themselves. I don’t know, and I guess it doesn’t matter.
Not sure where you are going with your second comment, and uninterested in engaging with your comparison as I don’t think it’s very good
On the traffic front, other than donations, if they don’t show ads, isn’t more traffic just more cost? So, I guess if copilot instead just shows info without the user going to wiki that might be good in a sense? But if they drove more traffic there, not so much? Unless they are donating….
I mean, I guess it’s better than ahem…. Grok with its fictitious information, but, I don’t think this of the ai_lovers community either…
You for maybe have an argument that at least the ai will be fed dates with some basis in reality, which could be good.
I mean you’re right, it doesn’t, but it does feel a bit bad considering all that data is mostly the work of volunteers, who now get the intense privilege of becoming AI feed.
I hate this derivative AI slop fest we are driving towards, so I guess I’m a little sensitive to news like this.
If microsoft is “buying access to training data” it makes what Open AI is doing look illegal. I would encourage every data broker to sell 'AI training data rights" because it undermines the only real advantage AI has and it helps pave the way to forcing AI companies to comply with open source licenses.
Essentially selling ai data rights is a trojan horse for the AI companies. Obviously it would be better to pass laws but until that happens this is imo a better strategy than doing nothing.
deleted by creator
OK then why sell data right to m$?
deleted by creator
They keep saying that… at least when they’re asking for more money.
Is wiki in the red? Unclear, omi mean they ask for money donations, but someone in this thread claims they are set for a decade, I’ve seen people post something about how they are fine, and even donate a bunch themselves. I don’t know, and I guess it doesn’t matter.
Not sure where you are going with your second comment, and uninterested in engaging with your comparison as I don’t think it’s very good
deleted by creator
On the traffic front, other than donations, if they don’t show ads, isn’t more traffic just more cost? So, I guess if copilot instead just shows info without the user going to wiki that might be good in a sense? But if they drove more traffic there, not so much? Unless they are donating….
I mean, I guess it’s better than ahem…. Grok with its fictitious information, but, I don’t think this of the ai_lovers community either…
You for maybe have an argument that at least the ai will be fed dates with some basis in reality, which could be good.
Many conflicting feelings
deleted by creator
I mean you’re right, it doesn’t, but it does feel a bit bad considering all that data is mostly the work of volunteers, who now get the intense privilege of becoming AI feed.
I hate this derivative AI slop fest we are driving towards, so I guess I’m a little sensitive to news like this.
deleted by creator
If microsoft is “buying access to training data” it makes what Open AI is doing look illegal. I would encourage every data broker to sell 'AI training data rights" because it undermines the only real advantage AI has and it helps pave the way to forcing AI companies to comply with open source licenses.
Essentially selling ai data rights is a trojan horse for the AI companies. Obviously it would be better to pass laws but until that happens this is imo a better strategy than doing nothing.
I mean, what open ai is doing and did should be illegal if it’s not, in my opinion.