Condé Nast joins other publishers in allowing OpenAI to access its content.

My original, editorialized title: Ars Technica Sells Out

Linking to this because I know people here read Ars Technica, and I totally didn’t become a subscriber three days before this was announced. Nope. No sir.

  • Not_mikey@slrpnk.netEnglish
    23·
    3 months ago

    llms suck because they steal content and are unreliable since they don’t link back to sources

    Open ai makes a deal to pay media org for there content and makes it so they can link back to original article

    “Ars technica sold out”

    • madjo@feddit.nlEnglish
      8·
      3 months ago

      Condé Nast didn’t just sell access to their subsidiaries’ content, but also to the user generated content on those subsidiaries’ sites. That’s at issue here.

      It also has a possibility to cause a conflict of interest for Ars Technica to write about OpenAI. That’s the second issue here.

      And, as per the editor in chief, the money doesn’t go to Ars Technica, but to Condé Nast.

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.oneEnglish
        3·
        3 months ago

        Yes they sold access to the user content we’ve generated after we explicitly agreed to the fact that they may do so. If you’ve chosen to not read the fine print when you created an account and created content for them, that’s sort of up to you tbh.

        All media companies have owners and potential conflicts of interest. Arstechnica (Conde Nast) is no different. They’ve explicitly called out any potential for conflict of interest when it has arisen in the past.

        Of course the money goes to Conde Nast, they own the brand Ars Technica and employ the people who write for it; that doesn’t mean it doesn’t figure on Ars Technica’s budget when Conde Nast decides whether to continue paying the salary of the staff.

    • patatahooligan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      3 months ago

      It’s funny because you’re making the opposite point of the one you think you’re making. Cause if you put together the two pieces of information from your comment, the entire picture is:

      Open ai makes a deal to pay media org for there content and makes it so they can link back to original article, with the money they make from stealing everybody else’s content

      That’s already pretty bad, even without that points you neglected to mention, like how some of the content that is indirectly making money for Ars Technica is stolen from their competitors, or how Ars Technica basically became a worthless journalistic source for AI at a time where public opinion is not yet settled on its morality and precedent has not been set on its legality. How is this not “sold out” to you?