Readit NewsThat's like ~2 engineers at FAANG.
If they would have respected the laws, OpenAI would not have been able to create AI models at all (as they are derivatives of copyrighted works).
So it's pure piracy of content at scale. The same with Veo3.
Is it beneficial to humanity ? Probably yes.
Is it harmful to content creators ? Absolutely but in the long-term, they have little chances to survive, no matter if legal or not, because this is both what the market and consumers want.
For example, these people on Fiverr selling blog posts, it was minimum 200 USD per blog post, and few days of turnaround.
Now with AI it's 0.01 USD and instant.
I think in the long term the highest quality content creators are going to find ways to keep their information out of AI training data, and put it behind walled gardens.
are you trying to collect ad revenue from the actual users? otherwise a chatbot reading your page because it found it by searching google and then relaying the info, with a link, to the user who asked for it seems reasonable
- Ability to prevent their crawlers from accessing URLs via robots.txt
- Ability to prevent a page from being indexed on the internet (noindex tag)
- Ability to remove existing pages that you don't want indexed (webmaster tools)
- Ability to remove an entire domain from the search engine (webmaster tools)
It is really impolite for the AI chatbots to go around and flout all these existing conventions because they know that webmasters would restrict their access because it's much less beneficial than it is for existing search engines.
In the long run, all this is going to lead to is more anti-bot countermeasures, more content behind logins (which can have legally binding anti-AI access restrictions) and less new original content. The victim will be all humans who aren't using a chatbot to slightly benefit the ones who are.
And again, I'm not suggesting that AI chatbots should not be allowed to load webpages, just that webmasters should be able to opt out of it.
One of my websites that gets a decent amount of traffic has pretty close to a 1-1 ratio of Googlebot accesses compared to real user traffic referred from Google. As a webmaster I'm happy with this and continue to allow Google to access the site.
If ChatGPT is giving my website a ratio of 100 bot accesses (or more) compared to 1 actual user sent to my site, I very much should have to right to decline their access.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tea_consu...
1. The springs lift the door from the bottom, and from each side, which puts less load on the door itself as compared to if the entire weight were being lifted from the top middle every time.
2. The motors can be smaller, quieter and use less power
3. In case of power failure, the door is much more functional and safer the less apparently weight it has.
Also the springs themselves are very unlikely to be dangerous (as long as you don't try to replace them yourself), because he said they almost always break when the door is at the closed state, because that is when they are under the most tension. Therefore on the whole, the springs in practice offer no practical safety risk, while greatly increasing the safety of the door in it's normal operation while also reducing wear and tear on the door. They also allow people to have heavier types of doors if they want them.
and relevant to this case, often the investor will do a higher valuation (artificially minting a unicorn etc) for optics/vanity reasons, which eats an additional 1+ years of future growth, eliminating the relevance of a discount here
and for folks who many not have followed terms above: investors get preferred shares, with rights over these discounted common shares. These include things like veto rights over acquisitions, first money out ("if $200M raised, no one else sees any $ until that $200M is paid back"), and for high-valuation unicorn rounds, often something like a participation multiple ("guaranteed extra $100M profit, so no one sees anything till $300M paid"), high interest rate on convertible debt portions, etc. So beyond the obvious dilution hit of new investors, there are a lot of these gotchas that trade a bigger bank account for heightened exit value risks to employees.
I assure you they can get more creative than saying that the last preferred price was at $X, therefore our hands are tied and the common must be close to that. They can take into consideration the preferred preferences, the current state of the business, the time since the last round, etc. For example, the 409a value can keep going down and down if the value of the business is (defensibly) going down and down, regardless of the last fundraising round.
So it's possible for employees to have joined after the new 409a when it was valued at 1.5bln and early exercised against that value.
Hard to keep up with all the changes and it would be nice to see a high level view of what people are using and how that might be shifting over time.