> Otherwise there is literally no reason for them to make any of it available on the open web
This is the hypothesis I always personally find fascinating in light of the army of semi-anonymous Wikipedia volunteers continuously gathering and curating information without pay.
If it became functionally impossible to upsell a little information for more paid information, I'm sure some people would stop creating information online. I don't know if it would be enough to fundamentally alter the character of the web.
Do people (generally) put things online to get money or because they want it online? And is "free" data worse quality than data you have to pay somebody for (or is the challenge more one of curation: when anyone can put anything up for free, sorting high- and low-quality based on whatever criteria becomes a new kind of challenge?).
Any information that requires something approximating a full-time job worth of effort to produce will necessarily go away, barring the small number of independently wealthy creators.
Existing subject-matter experts who blog for fun may or may not stick around, depending on what part of it is “fun” for them.
While some must derive satisfaction from increasing the total sum of human knowledge, others are probably blogging to engage with readers or build their own personal brand, neither of which is served by AI scrapers.
Wikipedia is an interesting case. I still don’t entirely understand why it works, though I think it’s telling that 24 years later no one has replicated their success.
Wikipedia works for the same reason open-source does: because most of the contributors are experts in the subject and have paid jobs in that field. Some are also just enthusiasts.
OpenStreetMap is basically Wikipedia for maps and is quite successful. Over 10M registered users and millions of edits per day. Lots of information is also shared online on forums for free. The hosting (e.g. reddit) is basically a commodity that benefits from network effects. The information is the more interesting bit, and people share it because they feel like it.
> Any information that requires something approximating a full-time job worth of effort to produce will necessarily go away
Many people put more effort into their hobbies than into their "full time" job.
Some of it will go away but perhaps without the expectation that you can earn money more people will share freely.
> While some must derive satisfaction from increasing the total sum of human knowledge, others are probably blogging to engage with readers or build their own personal brand, neither of which is served by AI scrapers.
We don't have to make all business models that someone might want possible though.
> Wikipedia is an interesting case. I still don’t entirely understand why it works, though I think it’s telling that 24 years later no one has replicated their success.
Actually this model is quite common. There are tons of sources of free information curated by volunteers - most are just too niece to get to the scale of Wikipedia.
This is the hypothesis I always personally find fascinating in light of the army of semi-anonymous Wikipedia volunteers continuously gathering and curating information without pay.
If it became functionally impossible to upsell a little information for more paid information, I'm sure some people would stop creating information online. I don't know if it would be enough to fundamentally alter the character of the web.
Do people (generally) put things online to get money or because they want it online? And is "free" data worse quality than data you have to pay somebody for (or is the challenge more one of curation: when anyone can put anything up for free, sorting high- and low-quality based on whatever criteria becomes a new kind of challenge?).
Jury's out on these questions, I think.