gfedtbyby

Starbucks business model is not entirely (or at all) reliant on the availability of new coffee drink recipes which can only be provided by third parties. So no, I wouldn't say so.

I don't think it's technically able to do that. It just tries to "guess" what the right source. It might get it right more often that not but that's not exactly what a citation is.

Much of that is Azure credits and not real money.

Since it "gives" the same information to everyone there aren't really that many incentives for you to allow LLM to use your content. "tragedy of the commons" and all that stuff...

If the cafe is a multi-billion corporation that can only exist because it can leech of content created by millions of other people without providing anything at all to them in return (and I'm not necessarily talking about financial compensation) then yeah.. maybe you should.

I don't think it's so much about legality rather than maintaining incentives (both financial and immaterial) for people to publish high-qualicontent that's available publicly.

Because authors and publishers wouldn't be very excited about that and would lobby governments to limit that (and I 100% believe they would be right to do that).

I doubt the number of content creators will increase or even stay constant if they know that only AI models will continue "reading" them.

> do I owe you 1% of what my clients pay me?

I would still derive some immaterial gain or satisfaction from you reading my website specifically and using what you learnt to improve yourself. As I expect most people would, so it's still a give and take relationship. LLMs sever that link.

It is doubtful many people will be as willing to continue "putting stuff out into the world" if they know that they are only contributing to some sort of (arguably semi-dystopian) hive-mind.

IMHO whether what they are doing or not is justifiable from a legalistic perspective is tangential and not that relevant if we're talking about free/non-commercial content.

It wouldn't help in any way, probably the opposite. Since there is no way to distingush search engines from other crawlers we should probably say goodbye to what remains of the open internet...

> do you contend that the monarchs suddenly got uglier

If you focus on the Habsburgs then arguably yes, it did got very bad in that regard. They still managed to find willing painters (even if they possible had to pay them a bit more to soften some of the most visible flaws).

Really?

Booking will likely side with the consumer if something goes wrong. A cooperative controlled by hotel owners? I'm not so sure..

That + trust + customer support at least for me is worth more than at most 5-10% you could save.

Nobody was at war with Russia over the last 20 years.

> If all you have to base your argument on is what you've learned in mainstream western media, I'm afraid you're not informed

As opposed to Russian state media or deranged fringe conspiracy theorists?

If you said something like this instead:

NAZI GERMANY has made plenty of attempts at peaceful relations with its neighbors. It has been rebuffed countless times because peace with GERMANY won't make anyone any profit.

You would sound about the same as you do now. Russia is not entitled to a zone of influence in Eastern Europe, it does not own Ukraine or the Baltic States for that matter. It's objectively an imperialist pseudo-fascist revanchist state...

I'm sorry did you reply to the wrong comment? How does this answer my question in any way?

> a pittance

Did you bother actually looking up these numbers? Public spending on healthcare in the US is comparable to most Western European countries.

So please name some of these extensive merits..

> reactionary agitprop.

Right...