This right here is the reason why companies that started out with good quality/intentions turn into companies with crappy mediocre products that now actually contribute to the opposite effect on the world than everything they once stood for.
So? Still doesn’t make sense to me that wikipedia can sell anything meaningful here, but I’m also not a lawyer. Do they promise not to sue them or sell them some guarantee that contributors also can’t sue them? Is it just some symbolic PR washing?
I just love how people just shit “facts” out of their ass while citing zero sources and people will just believe them and upvote because it confirms their bias.
This number inflates every time I read it. First it was ten years of hosting cost. Then it’s operating costs. Soon it will be ten years of the entire US GDP.
I’d believe they have ten years of hosting costs on hand.
My quick googling says they have 170m in assets and all 180m in annual operating costs. Give or take.
It’s a non-profit foundation with the majority being volunteers. If greed was the case one then would have to ask is why not just go ahead and inject ads
Well as mentioned Wikipedia seems to be in the red and not making enough donations to pay for the expenses. So maybe the foundation is thinking it would help with the deficit.
Also chances are Microsoft will instruct Co-Pilot to prioritize Wikipedia whenever it scours the internet for information.
Think it like that eye rolling Google paying Firefox to be the default search engine deal.
Is wiki in the red? Unclear, omi mean they ask for money donations, but someone in this thread claims they are set for a decade, I’ve seen people post something about how they are fine, and even donate a bunch themselves. I don’t know, and I guess it doesn’t matter.
Not sure where you are going with your second comment, and uninterested in engaging with your comparison as I don’t think it’s very good
I am referring to the reply comment from surewhynotlem. They say that cost is 180 million while Wikipedia has 170 million on hand. That is a 10 million deficit.
While probably not enough to shut down the site it is still operating in the red.
Where I was going is explaining how it’s possibly not greed. Just the foundation looking for another revenue source that theoretically would not ruin the site.
That alt being a deal that gets Wikipedia more traffic
On the traffic front, other than donations, if they don’t show ads, isn’t more traffic just more cost? So, I guess if copilot instead just shows info without the user going to wiki that might be good in a sense? But if they drove more traffic there, not so much? Unless they are donating….
I mean, I guess it’s better than ahem…. Grok with its fictitious information, but, I don’t think this of the ai_lovers community either…
You for maybe have an argument that at least the ai will be fed dates with some basis in reality, which could be good.
If microsoft is “buying access to training data” it makes what Open AI is doing look illegal. I would encourage every data broker to sell 'AI training data rights" because it undermines the only real advantage AI has and it helps pave the way to forcing AI companies to comply with open source licenses.
Essentially selling ai data rights is a trojan horse for the AI companies. Obviously it would be better to pass laws but until that happens this is imo a better strategy than doing nothing.
Wikipedia just sold the rights to use Wikipedia for AI training to Microsoft and openai…
It’s getting scraped anyway. So why not get some money from it?
This right here is the reason why companies that started out with good quality/intentions turn into companies with crappy mediocre products that now actually contribute to the opposite effect on the world than everything they once stood for.
They lose the right to sue them
They probably realized that it was a losing battle and they didn’t want to pay legal fees.
Imo this. Selling access also implies its illegal to access without purchasing rights which imho helps undermine AI’s only monetary advantage
How exactly does that work? Wikipedia does not “own” the content on the website, it’s all CC-BY licensed.
Yeah, they’re selling the work of others. That’s how the site always worked. This venture into “AI” is nothing new.
The BY term is not respected by LLMs
So? Still doesn’t make sense to me that wikipedia can sell anything meaningful here, but I’m also not a lawyer. Do they promise not to sue them or sell them some guarantee that contributors also can’t sue them? Is it just some symbolic PR washing?
Why? Wikipedia has like a decade of operating expenses on hand, so they don’t need the money
I just love how people just shit “facts” out of their ass while citing zero sources and people will just believe them and upvote because it confirms their bias.
This number inflates every time I read it. First it was ten years of hosting cost. Then it’s operating costs. Soon it will be ten years of the entire US GDP.
I’d believe they have ten years of hosting costs on hand.
My quick googling says they have 170m in assets and all 180m in annual operating costs. Give or take.
Greed? It’s probably greed.
It’s a non-profit foundation with the majority being volunteers. If greed was the case one then would have to ask is why not just go ahead and inject ads
OK then why sell data right to m$?
Well as mentioned Wikipedia seems to be in the red and not making enough donations to pay for the expenses. So maybe the foundation is thinking it would help with the deficit.
Also chances are Microsoft will instruct Co-Pilot to prioritize Wikipedia whenever it scours the internet for information.
Think it like that eye rolling Google paying Firefox to be the default search engine deal.
They keep saying that… at least when they’re asking for more money.
Is wiki in the red? Unclear, omi mean they ask for money donations, but someone in this thread claims they are set for a decade, I’ve seen people post something about how they are fine, and even donate a bunch themselves. I don’t know, and I guess it doesn’t matter.
Not sure where you are going with your second comment, and uninterested in engaging with your comparison as I don’t think it’s very good
I am referring to the reply comment from surewhynotlem. They say that cost is 180 million while Wikipedia has 170 million on hand. That is a 10 million deficit.
While probably not enough to shut down the site it is still operating in the red.
Where I was going is explaining how it’s possibly not greed. Just the foundation looking for another revenue source that theoretically would not ruin the site.
That alt being a deal that gets Wikipedia more traffic
On the traffic front, other than donations, if they don’t show ads, isn’t more traffic just more cost? So, I guess if copilot instead just shows info without the user going to wiki that might be good in a sense? But if they drove more traffic there, not so much? Unless they are donating….
I mean, I guess it’s better than ahem…. Grok with its fictitious information, but, I don’t think this of the ai_lovers community either…
You for maybe have an argument that at least the ai will be fed dates with some basis in reality, which could be good.
Many conflicting feelings
If microsoft is “buying access to training data” it makes what Open AI is doing look illegal. I would encourage every data broker to sell 'AI training data rights" because it undermines the only real advantage AI has and it helps pave the way to forcing AI companies to comply with open source licenses.
Essentially selling ai data rights is a trojan horse for the AI companies. Obviously it would be better to pass laws but until that happens this is imo a better strategy than doing nothing.
I mean, what open ai is doing and did should be illegal if it’s not, in my opinion.
I mean it’s free money, why not?