> everything we do online has, until this point, been free training to make OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. richer while cutting humans--the ones who produced the value--out of the loop
I think on the contrary, who sets the prompts stands to get benefits, the AI provider gets a flat fee, and authors get nothing except the same AI tools as anyone else. That is natural since the users are bringing the problem to the AI, of course they have the lion share here.
AI is useless until applied to a specific task owned by a person or company. Within such a task there is opportunity for AI to generate value. AI does not generate its own opportunities, users do.
Because users are distributed across society benefits follow the same curve. They don't flow to the center but mainly remain at the edge. In this sense LLMs are like Linux, they serve every user in their specific way, but the contributors to the open source code don't get directly compensated.
That's a really interesting way to think about it, thank you! I've always had a kind of "gut feeling" that AI training on our data is fine with me, but without really thinking too much about why. I think this explains what I've been feeling.
I think on the contrary, who sets the prompts stands to get benefits, the AI provider gets a flat fee, and authors get nothing except the same AI tools as anyone else. That is natural since the users are bringing the problem to the AI, of course they have the lion share here.
AI is useless until applied to a specific task owned by a person or company. Within such a task there is opportunity for AI to generate value. AI does not generate its own opportunities, users do.
Because users are distributed across society benefits follow the same curve. They don't flow to the center but mainly remain at the edge. In this sense LLMs are like Linux, they serve every user in their specific way, but the contributors to the open source code don't get directly compensated.