----
> But for authors of newer technical material, yes, I think LLMs will make it harder for those people to be able to afford to spend the time thinking, writing, and sharing their expertise.
Alright, you're now arguing for some new regulations though, since this is not a matter for copyright.
In that context, I observe that many academics already put their technical books online for free. Machine learning, computer vision, robotics etc. I doubt it's a hugely lucrative thing in the first place.
No, I'm not. I'm not talking about law at all. You talked about what reasonable people do and I'm also talking about what people do.
> I observe that many academics already put their technical books online for free.
As do I, which is why the LLMs are trained on it and are able to so effectively regurgitate it.
> I doubt it's a hugely lucrative thing in the first place.
This is true in many cases, but you might be surprised.
I'm not a legal scholar, so I'm not qualified or interested in arguing about whether Cliff Notes is fair use. But I do care about how people behave, and I'm pretty sure that Cliff Notes and LLMs lead to fewer books being purchased, which makes it harder for writers to do what they do.
In the case of Cliff Notes, it probably matters less because because the authors of 19th century books in your English 101 class are long dead and buried. But for authors of newer technical material, yes, I think LLMs will make it harder for those people to be able to afford to spend the time thinking, writing, and sharing their expertise.