Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | erelong's commentslogin

nice title but then my question is more about what I should be directing my attention towards habitually

as a side note I was experimenting with the mental health implications of whatever you focus on as creating whatever emotions you experience, to some extent


You should direct your attention to what you are doing in the moment. If you are doing the dishes, you can practice awareness by noticing the sensations of doing the dishes, the movements, the various senses.

If you're doing the laundry, notice how the clothes feel in your hands.

If you're walking, notice your breath, notice how your feet and legs feel walking on the ground.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49795945


Kind of doesn't say or mean anything

Imagine in contrast an assertion that half of young people would trust a random human off the street for fact-checking (you'd have no idea if they have reliable abilities)


It's apparently a thing, "nicotine free" vaping

how about making money from something else like hardware, to fund software (almost like IP is a fiction and people should be making money from tangible things rather than info)

I'm sure AI can also brainstorm more ideas for (F)OSS business models today


Shut down, rebrand, try some different approach to security services

Being a magnet of attention as a despised surveillance corp has to be tiring


AI created, as of currently, a big creative commons to make use of unlike ever before

Also not mentioned as much is the public domain (it would be nice if everything was in the public domain or IP was gotten rid of)


> news site unhappy about their content being scraped

Not surprising, but calling it "theft" only makes sense within the IP paradigm (we might do better without IP)


One can quickly get philosophical here ("what is ownership?"), but IMO IP theft is as real as theft of a possession, insofar as both have value that the original owner has now been deprived of.

News sites et al. provide content. Evidently that content, despite being intangible, has value to the people who consume it. The value LLMs are able to provide comes directly from the data they scrape, which they can now monetize.

I basically don't see how this is different from taking an apple from someone and selling it to someone else.


Even if one believes that piracy on an individual level isn't the big deal that has been made of it, a large business doing it on a massive scale with the goal of destroying others' ability to continue to meaningfully subsist and produce new things is a completely different matter.

There's a world of difference between someone downloading a book and a company basically burning down the entire publishing industry and making writing as a profession increasingly non-viable. The latter should be approached in the context of antitrust (leveraging a dominant position to knock over unrelated markets) and racketeering.


The other guy still has the apple.

There's deprivation of future value and deprivation of present value. The owner can continue to sell a digital apple, but it's not clear to me that "theft" inherently deprives the owner of future value. For example, I could steal your car for a night of joyriding and return it unharmed the next day. You might reasonably say that a theft occurred even though you retain the car afterwards. Note that I'm aware this example isn't perfectly analogous to digital goods.

Theres neither with piracy.

Like you have to assume that the lack of the piracy would lead to an actual sale. Which isnt the case at all.


You only have to assume that some instances of piracy would have led to an actual sale and adjust the lost present value to p*price on average.

Turn your apple metaphor around.

You grow an apple. You plant the seeds and scare off pests for like 12 years and then harvest your first apple.

Apples are scarce resources. You are very much entitled to compensation when selling the apple.

However, despite all the labor, if you could magically copy the apple, feeding the entire human race an infinite amount of apples forever, you would be pretty much morally obligated to do it. Like you wouldnt be faulted for pursuing the value of your labor once, but the idea that you would restrict the flow of apples, arbitrarily, just to try and get the value of your labor for each of an infinite amount of apples is absurd. To further imply that someone was stealing if they stole a copied apple is laughable. Really, any of your infinite apples that rots away in storage rather than finding its way to a hungry person is stealing from the hungry person.

What matters, is scarcity. Non scarce resources really shouldnt follow the same rules as scarce ones.


To add to this in some other direction, I have often thought that the people who have been "stolen" from... should just "get even" by making use of the LLM for their own profit in some way

They helped build an incredible tool that they should benefit from, so go ahead and reap the benefits, right?


What do you do for a living?

> we might do better without IP

IP protections are a critical foundation that ensures the software engineering profession is a profitable one. I prefer to live in a world in which I can use my skills to feed my family, thanks.



Regarding "fuel", I've often wondered about a granular estimation of the cost of creating something, like "this small app costs $5 of tokens or electricity and consumes a liter of water", etc. such that you would have some idea of specifically how much it costs to take certain actions

It honestly sounds like a good filter if you don't want "crazy anti-AI people" at your shop

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: