Raw LLM Responses

Hi. Tech bro here. TBF I get why AI companies would not want to pay artists, beyond simply because they're cheap. The whole gimmick of AI is that it trains on very large datasets. When I say very large, I mean it's VERY large. Mindboggingly large. These models didn't work until modern technology made training with petabytes of information possible. At that scale, paying for sources is just not viable. Not even a country has enough money to pay each source $1 for each work, and people would probably ask a higher price for their work. Even if not, even if you could license someone's whole portfolio for a buck, the logistics of paying pretty much everybody in the world would be insanely expensive and labour intensive. It's just a seemingly intractable problem for any company, no matter how large. I'm saying "source" because this is not limited to artists. AI gets trained on all kinds of data, and sometimes it's not art. It's news, it's technical documents, everything. Then you have the bias problem. These models wouldn't be as useful if you just train on whoever agreed to let them use their work. Would ChatGPT be able to answer reliably if it could only check free sources in the internet? If it can't look behind paywalled news sites, inside scientific journals (which aren't free), inside books - books contain humanity's knowledge, and they're not free. Does an AI company need to buy every book in the world? I think this is one case where humanity will have to figure things out differently. These tools are useful, but they go against a lot of what has been common practice for ages. We'll have to figure out how to make this work. How to compensate absolutely everybody for existing and producing output AI can consume, so that everybody can benefit from it.Not even AI companies benefit from pushing content producers (artists, news sites, etc) out of business, as they do feed off of their work. It's a revolutionary time, and how humanity solves this will be certainly part of future history books IMO.