One comment to add here - regardless of where you stand on this particular LLM provider:<p>Do we want knowledge communities like Stack Overflow or Reddit to continue to exist? Should big AI providers that train on their data share some of the value back to the community? Is there an ethical way for web communities to license data to AI providers?<p>I hope the answer is yes and that there is a path to a productive partnership, one that allows public communities where knowledge is shared freely to thrive, while also bringing more grounded and vetted content to AI systems that are often closed and require a subscription to access.
My experience of stack overflow is that the question in the title is too often not answered directly. The specific issue is tangentially related to the title and the answer can amount to a typo or a bad assumption.<p>There are often clues in the comments that are more helpful than the “answer” and often outdated answers have the most votes.<p>All this to ask, how on earth is something like an LLM expected to reconcile those issues.
I'm curious about the longevity of these sort of collaborations - in the future who is contributing to these knowledge bases? I imagine the communities that surround these places will fade away if new users are unaware of them and content creation begins to halt.<p>Though I suppose that is a short sighted concern in itself given the way in which we work will begin to evolve quickly as AI becomes more powerful.<p>In the end, I guess they end up being a positive press story for Google / Open AI / etc.?
I don't understand these instances of using ML to return search results. DDG, returns results; ML returns results, possibly with hallucination. Even without the hallucination what's the point? I find the results I need from a search engine. Solution looking for a problem?