Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)IM
incognito_mode @lemmy.world
Posts 0
Comments 3
Lemmy is CEO-proof. After Digg, Reddit and Twitter, that term should be a thing
  • Yeah, I understand that screen scraping is a thing, and having a robot just simply read an entire website means there's nothing you can do to stop that from happening short of taking the website offline.

    I was talking about in a more structured and proactive way "We know that AI will read our site, and ingest that for LLM, instead of simply accepting that as an inevitability we're extending this offer instead, for a nominal fee we will provide them with the entirety of our sites information with all screen names redacted to protect the identity of the content creators, in exchange for them not simply using AI to read our site."

    Or something to that effect. Accept that it will happen, and there's nothing you can really do to stop it. But to package the data in a clean way so that they don't have too, and can simply ingest it into the LLM data sets directly.

  • Lemmy is CEO-proof. After Digg, Reddit and Twitter, that term should be a thing
  • This is a great point. The user data needs to be enshrined in such a way that it can be easily moved in a bulk migration without requiring a direct opt-in from every user. While at the same time making it clear how it's being used/kept/sold/not sold/etc.

    I'm not against LLMs using the data generated on sites like this to inform useful answers when I ask ChatGPT a question. It genuinely makes AI a better tool, but I feel like the contributors of such content should know how their answers are being used.