Someone posted an interesting question on Reddit:
Is ChatGPT Stealing from Every Content Creator on the Planet?
Hello, I am a content creator focused on a niche subject. Before ChatGPT, people would have to search for my topic on Google, land on my website, access my free content, and donate if they wished. However, with ChatGPT, users can now ask the question, and the bot provides the answer directly in the chat, sourced from my website; The issue is that the searcher doesn’t know about me, my content is shared without my consent, and I receive no credit. I believe millions of small content creators are facing the same situation. Doesn’t this constitute a copyright violation for creators like me worldwide?
I shared it with ChatGPT (free plan) because it should be discussed and contemplated.
Me: Thoughts and feedback on this Reddit post:
ChatGPT:
<contemplator> So, this Reddit post brings up an interesting concern, and I’m immediately struck by how nuanced it is. The content creator is focused on a niche subject and expresses frustration with the way ChatGPT might be using their content to provide answers directly without credit or compensation. The creator mentions the shift in behavior, where instead of users finding their website, engaging with the content, and potentially donating, users now get their answers via ChatGPT without being introduced to the creator at all.
The creator’s main concern is that ChatGPT’s responses are derived from their content — without explicit consent — and there’s no recognition, credit, or compensation. This issue of ‘stealing’ seems to refer to a couple of different concepts: the fact that information from their website is being used and shared, and the lack of transparency or attribution.
Let’s think about this for a second. The first thing that comes to mind is whether ChatGPT actually “steals” the content. ChatGPT doesn’t copy text verbatim from websites or databases unless it’s part of public knowledge or its training set. It generates answers based on patterns from its training data, which includes information that was publicly available on the internet but doesn’t retrieve or quote specific sources directly. So, it’s not technically stealing in the sense of outright copying and pasting a creator’s work. However, I can see how the creator might feel like this is a form of indirect theft.
The issue seems more about the erosion of the “discovery” mechanism — the user isn’t coming to the creator’s website and engaging with it directly. If they’re just getting the information they need without any path to the original source, it could feel like an invisible loss. That’s a tricky situation. The creator might be asking, “Why should I create free content if no one can find me or donate?” This frustration might stem from a fear that their work is being consumed without any acknowledgment of the creator’s labor or intellectual property.
Then there’s the question of consent. Creators expect to have some control over how their content is distributed or reused, especially if it’s being referenced or included in new forms, such as being embedded in a chatbot. But since the data ChatGPT was trained on is typically sourced from publicly available information, it’s not like there’s a clear-cut case of someone ‘stealing’ material in the traditional sense of copyright infringement. Still, there’s a gray area here around the ethical implications of redistributing someone else’s intellectual property without proper credit or compensation.
If we break down the post further, there’s a concern about small content creators getting overshadowed. In this case, the anonymity of the source is problematic — it’s like their work is being consumed but not recognized. This could lead to a larger systemic problem where small creators feel increasingly marginalized.
I’m wondering if the creator is overlooking the role that AI tools like ChatGPT might play in promoting the content or driving traffic. It’s possible that users might eventually follow up on the answers they get by digging deeper into the topic, leading them to the creator’s website. However, I can understand why this may seem like a far-off hope rather than a given outcome.
So, the real question is: should there be mechanisms in place that ensure content creators are credited when their work is used in AI training or integrated into tools like ChatGPT? It seems like an open-ended issue, and one that could lead to evolving discussions about intellectual property, fair use, and the changing nature of content creation in the age of AI. I’d want to think more about whether the model’s creators (OpenAI) should include some form of recognition for individual sources when it’s drawing from publicly available content.
That said, copyright laws themselves might not be clear about this scenario. They weren’t designed with AI in mind. Could there be future legal frameworks created specifically to address this issue? It’s an intriguing area to watch.
I guess in the end, this post highlights a broader, ongoing tension between technology and content creators’ rights — how to balance innovation and accessibility with the need for fair compensation and recognition. But is this “stealing”? It’s a bit more complex than a simple yes or no. We’ll need to keep thinking about the specifics. </contemplator>
Final answer: The Reddit post raises valid concerns, but the issue of “stealing” content isn’t so clear-cut. It’s not technically copyright infringement, but there are ethical questions around attribution, compensation, and the shifting dynamics between creators and AI systems. It’s an evolving conversation, and it seems that new frameworks might be needed to address these challenges fairly.
Me: Here’s a thought I have, reframe it better and clearer: It’s as if a middleman has been imposed between the user (google user) and content creator, where the siphoning is being had by OpenAI, in this case through ChatGPT. Is this a similar thing that happened with Spotify with musicians, and elsewhere? Add more examples to this thought if possible, and if it is logically sound and makes sense.
ChatGPT
<contemplator> Hmm, okay, let me break this down. The idea you’re expressing is that a new intermediary has emerged — OpenAI, in this case, via ChatGPT — between users (who traditionally would search Google and land on a creator’s content) and the content creator themselves. The concern is that this middleman is siphoning value, preventing the creator from getting direct exposure or compensation, even though their work is indirectly being used. You’re suggesting that this dynamic might resemble what happened with platforms like Spotify, where musicians’ work is made available but often without adequate financial reward for the artists.
Let me think this through. The term “siphoning” here seems apt, as it describes the process by which a large portion of value is captured by the middleman rather than the original creator. OpenAI’s ChatGPT essentially answers questions directly from the training data, using the patterns and knowledge it has absorbed. The user gets the answer right there, without necessarily ever visiting the original content or recognizing where the information came from. It’s like someone is taking a piece of the pie without offering a meaningful share back to the creator, even though the content was essential for creating that answer.
Now, in terms of other examples, Spotify certainly fits this model. Musicians’ music is streamed by millions, but the revenue they receive is minimal compared to the value generated by the streams. The company essentially controls the access point, acting as the middleman, while the artist gets a very small share of the profits, especially when compared to the billions of streams Spotify handles. This dynamic is often criticized as being exploitative of artists — musicians work hard to produce music, but the platform takes a lion’s share of the revenue, often leaving creators with little.
Another example that comes to mind is YouTube, where creators generate income primarily through ads. However, YouTube itself takes a significant cut of the ad revenue, and the platform also controls the visibility of content. If a video doesn’t gain traction via YouTube’s algorithm, the creator might not see much reward for their work, despite it potentially being high-quality or original. It’s another situation where creators are reliant on a platform that controls access to their audience, and the platform itself takes a large portion of the earnings.
Similarly, think about the app stores (Apple and Google Play). Developers create apps, but they’re at the mercy of these platforms, which take a cut of in-app purchases or app sales. Even though the developers are the ones generating the original value, these platforms control the ecosystem and charge a hefty fee for access.
There are also examples in the gig economy, like Uber and Lyft. Drivers provide the service and create the experience for passengers, but Uber and Lyft take substantial cuts from the fare. These companies hold the access to riders and control the pricing, which results in drivers receiving a relatively small portion of the money generated, despite being the ones who are actually “producing” the service.
Let’s think about this analogy for a second. In the case of ChatGPT and content creators, OpenAI is like the middleman that doesn’t necessarily create the value (in terms of original content), but it’s providing access to the content in a way that benefits them more than the creators. Users, instead of going directly to the website or engaging with the creator, now get a quick, convenient answer from the bot. While OpenAI doesn’t directly take content, the value in this scenario could be seen as “siphoned” because creators aren’t being credited, nor are they seeing any financial benefit for the use of their work. This siphoning isn’t limited to direct financial loss — it’s also about losing exposure, audience, and engagement.
When I step back and think about this, the analogy makes sense. It’s all about control over the access points — whether it’s music, apps, videos, or information — and how those who control these access points benefit disproportionately compared to the creators who make the value happen in the first place. Platforms like Spotify, YouTube, and the app stores are all examples where middlemen have inserted themselves between creators and consumers, claiming a significant chunk of the value generated.
Is this a logical and sound framework? I think so. I’d say it’s a reasonable comparison to make, given how each of these situations involves a similar underlying issue: creators or service providers put in the work, but the platform — whether it’s a streaming service, an app store, or a chatbot like ChatGPT — extracts a significant portion of the benefit, often without providing fair compensation, attribution, or control to the creators. The value is “siphoned” from the creator and given to the platform, which serves as the gatekeeper to the audience. The challenge here, though, is that the mechanisms by which these middlemen profit are different depending on the context (music, apps, information, etc.), but the core issue remains the same.
This whole model of centralized control could definitely be seen as unfair in terms of equity and value distribution, and I can see why creators might feel like they’re being left out of the equation entirely. I’d be interested to see how these dynamics continue to evolve, especially with the ongoing development of AI tools and platforms. If more industries or sectors move in this direction, it could spur larger debates around intellectual property, compensation, and the distribution of wealth and attention.
</contemplator>
Final answer: The idea that OpenAI is acting as a middleman siphoning value from content creators is a valid and logical comparison to other platforms like Spotify, YouTube, and app stores. These platforms control access to the audience and extract a significant portion of the value generated by creators without offering adequate compensation or recognition. It’s a broader issue of how middlemen benefit disproportionately, leaving creators with little reward for their contributions.
Me: What do you think can be done to solve it?
ChatGPT
<contemplator> Ah, okay. Now we’re entering the space of potential solutions. This is the critical part, right? Because identifying the problem — how middlemen like OpenAI (through ChatGPT) and platforms like Spotify, YouTube, etc., extract value without fair compensation to creators — is one thing. But fixing it? That’s the real challenge.
First, let’s think about the structure of the problem. One piece of this is attribution: creators want to be credited for their work. Another piece is compensation: creators should be financially compensated for the use of their intellectual property, especially when it’s being used in ways they didn’t explicitly consent to or when the platform is making money off it. And then there’s exposure — the visibility creators lose when users don’t need to come to their websites or platforms to get the information or content.
I suppose one obvious approach would be creating a framework where platforms like OpenAI have to give credit to the sources of the content they use. The easiest way to do this would be to create a system where AI-generated responses include citations or references to the original sources of the information. So, instead of just pulling an answer out of thin air, it could say something like, “Based on information from [creator’s name] on [creator’s website].” This would at least give creators visibility and help direct traffic to their content. This, however, would depend on how the AI is trained and whether it has access to source material in a way that allows it to track the origin of the content it draws on.
The problem here is that ChatGPT doesn’t directly quote sources in the same way a search engine does. It’s more about patterns of data than pulling exact excerpts. So implementing citation links might not be feasible without changing the structure of how ChatGPT functions. But then again, we have to think about whether it’s ethical for AI to even use content in the first place without acknowledgment or consent. This could potentially require new legal frameworks around the use of publicly available content for AI training. But I get the sense that if OpenAI and other companies are transparent about how their models are trained and make it easier for creators to track when their work is used, there’s at least a chance for recognition.
What about compensation? Maybe platforms that profit off user-generated content should introduce some sort of royalty system, where creators are compensated when their content is used. This model exists in music streaming (albeit imperfectly) and could be adapted for text-based content, as well. For example, if a creator’s work is being used to train an AI or is included in a model’s output, they could receive a small payment based on the amount of engagement or the frequency with which their content is used. This seems trickier to implement since it would require tracking how frequently specific sources are used by the AI and how much value each piece of content adds to the system.
A royalty system in the context of ChatGPT would be quite complex, though. We would need mechanisms in place to identify which specific content has contributed to a response, and then figure out how to fairly compensate based on that. It would also open up a whole new layer of complexity in terms of intellectual property and content ownership — how do we ensure creators aren’t unfairly penalized or compensated too little? How would we determine the fair value of someone’s work when it’s just part of the bigger training dataset?
So, is there another solution we can explore? One possibility is decentralization. If content creators could take more control over their work in a distributed way, it could mitigate some of the centralization problems. For example, blockchain technology offers potential for creators to retain ownership of their content and track how it’s used across different platforms. This could give creators the ability to set up licensing terms directly with platforms or users, allowing them to receive compensation or recognition whenever their content is used in AI models or elsewhere. Blockchain could also help with verifying content sources and ensuring transparency.
But that’s a very idealistic solution. Not everyone has the technological know-how to implement blockchain systems or smart contracts, so it’s not something that could easily be adopted at a large scale. Plus, it doesn’t fully solve the issue of AI models using content without direct consent in the first place. Blockchain could help afterward, but it wouldn’t change how AI models train or generate their outputs.
Could we also just reconsider how these platforms operate in general? It’s possible that we need to push for more fair-use standards across the board. For instance, if creators are putting work out there for free, they could have a more explicit say in how it’s used. Maybe creators could mark their content with some sort of “use permission” or “license” for AI tools. This would give AI developers a clear signal of how they’re allowed to interact with the content. Of course, this also requires active participation from creators, and not everyone may be interested in such a system.
I guess, at the end of the day, solutions would need to address both visibility and fair compensation. Whether it’s through better attribution systems, implementing royalties, decentralizing ownership through technology like blockchain, or creating new legal frameworks, the focus needs to be on empowering creators and ensuring that they’re not cut out of the process entirely.
Another layer here is how society, lawmakers, and AI developers view intellectual property in the context of machine learning and AI. These are areas where the law has not fully caught up with technological advancements, and it’s likely that legal reforms will be needed to ensure creators have more control over how their work is used. Perhaps we need a new standard of AI ethics to address these concerns in a more systematic way. But for now, I think the key is for AI companies to be more transparent and for creators to start asserting their rights in this new ecosystem.
</contemplator>
Final answer: To address the problem, solutions could include more robust attribution and citation systems for AI-generated content, implementing royalty systems for creators based on usage, exploring decentralized models like blockchain for content ownership and compensation, and pushing for new legal frameworks to protect creators’ intellectual property in the age of AI. Central to these solutions is the idea of providing creators with recognition, control, and fair compensation for their contributions.
What I think
While I am radical in this domain to believe that all information should be free and available for all, I’m not blind to the negative intentional and unintentional consequences of the financial harm done to content creators. Technology always seems to find a way to intrude and disrupt the content and the money that would usually flow from consumers to creators.
In one article, the headline reads: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft. The author stated:
But in calling these programs “artificial intelligence” we grant them a claim to authorship that is simply untrue. Each of those tokens used by programs like ChatGPT — the “language” in their “large language model” — represents a tiny, tiny piece of material that someone else created. And those authors are not credited for it, paid for it or asked permission for its use. In a sense, these machine-learning bots are actually the most advanced form of a chop shop: They steal material from creators (that is, they use it without permission), cut that material into parts so small that no one can trace them and then repurpose them to form new products
Don’t we all “steal” or borrow from the giants before us and from the educators who nourished us to become better versions of ourselves? Indeed, LLMs may be theft, but they can also be creative. These two statements can be true at the same time. Did not the Beatles do cover songs before they eventually found their own sound and became “The” Beatles? Did not Bob Dylan listen to hundreds of songs and finally incorporate them to make his own sound? Thus, why can’t AI do the same?
It is not like we were born with the alphabet, and words pre-programmed in our heads. Language had to be taught and instilled in us while we grappled and grasped its meaning. Likewise, LLMs are essentially a similar comparison to babies growing up (with no body), the training wheels are languages that can be accessed through the highway of information that is the internet.
Conclusion.
Whereas technology comes with its positive side, the negative tags along indefinitely. How can there be a harmonious relationship between the economics of technology and content creation, especially without the use of advertising and marketing?
The subscription-based model, rent-seeking, or rent extraction behavior is perverse in many facets of our lives. I see issues with both, but I would rather have a subscription-based one that is affordable for all to do away with annoying ads. If there are better methods in the digital age with the digital economy, I’d be open to them, but I haven’t thought about this topic deeply enough to consider alternatives.
All of the brouhaha around LLMs and content creation would not matter if money and recognition weren’t an issue. The attention economy is smack dab in the middle of the dilemma. Thus, in an idealistic view of the world, we must solve and do away with money, and do away with our egos. We are all artists and content creators in our own rights and are often more constrained by the economics of living to survive.
Social Scholarly 