this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
131 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

81451 readers
3917 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Recent reporting by Nieman Lab describes how some major news organizations—including The Guardian, The New York Times, and Reddit—are limiting or blocking access to their content in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. As stated in the article, these organizations are blocking access largely out of concern that generative AI companies are using the Wayback Machine as a backdoor for large-scale scraping.

These concerns are understandable, but unfounded. The Wayback Machine is not intended to be a backdoor for large-scale commercial scraping and, like others on the web today, we expend significant time and effort working to prevent such abuse. Whatever legitimate concerns people may have about generative AI, libraries are not the problem, and blocking access to web archives is not the solution; doing so risks serious harm to the public record.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, so there was a time when I was dreaming day and night about something like those LLMs, but for archiving knowledge. That is, archiving existing statements with subjects and objects and relations, a bit more high-level and less generalized than LLMs. Syllogisms, semantic relationships, distances in application. Sort of what holocrons are in Star Wars.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So kinda like an ethical LLM^[But I get your distinctions and I'm on board with that. It'd be nice!]. I'd be on board with that.

I know it's unpopular to say, but I've found the latest version of Gemini to be pretty useful. But you have to know what they're good for and not. General knowledge? Generally pretty decent. But you have to ask for sources and check those sources, and don't tell it what you think, ask it what it knows and to admit when it doesn't know things. I wouldn't put my life on the line, but for looking up random stuff, it's pretty decent.

I know LLMs will get worse and shittier, which I think is a bummer, because they could be so damned useful.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It would be similar to an ethical LLM, but the question is not in ethics, it's in having more structure. Sort of granularity. That could allow to scrape knowledge and reproduce it in some way better than just an LLM output. Such a thing could be both a model and an associative dictionary, a bit like automated Wikipedia.

I found it to be just Google made more convenient, which is good, but not there yet.

I know LLMs will get worse and shittier, which I think is a bummer, because they could be so damned useful.

Why would they? Humans keep producing new data. Old datasets will get less useful. They do all the time. And the old approach to training. But fundamentally they shouldn't get worse.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

more structure. [etc, trimmed quote]

I'm on board with wanting this :)

LLMs will get worse and shittier Why would they?

Not from the side of them gaining more knowledge but from the side of companies creating them monetizing and otherwise enshittifying them.

If we had a competitive open-source LLM…

So you're not wrong, I agree; but I was speaking of a different angle. heh

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah, in that dimension what I see seems similar to oil processing, again. They are generally all similar. Better datasets - better output. A natural curve of expenses and results.

A competitive open-source LLM makes sense ; but the real asset is data. So said LLM will be hosted (or provided with computing power) commercially to work on said processed data, usually. There are no anarchist free gas stations, and just like that it will be a building block of businesses.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I suppose the real issue is paying for the servers. There's already pushback against the datacenters needed to power LLMs as it is. I suppose the capital to build would have to come from somewhere.

It's a pity we don't have a good government for a project like that. That would truly be a public service.

Did some calculations recently. If we took the cropland on which we grow corn strictly for ethanol production and put solar on it, something like 5% IIRC could power enough EVs to replace ALL vehicles in the US. Which means we could use a little more land for solar to power datacenters designed to be as environmentally friendly as possible. A government-run LLM run for the public.

It's a pipe dream because in our current reality, it could never happen. But like universal health care and a living minimum wage, it should exist.

I know, I'm straying from the topic again. ADHD gonna ADHD. heh

I suppose as long as we were able to regulate AI companies to make sure they were forced to be upfront, honest, useful… it would be a sufficient compromise. But I'm sure we can't even have that little.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago

That would truly be a public service.

Well, if we continue my analogy, government-run oil processing plants and gasoline subsidies have not historically worked well.

It's a device of investing hard power into computing.

That cropland will repurpose itself by market laws if the change is so dramatic, I think it is. I don't like the AI hype, but the major change of converting hard power into data and data into answers to questions is potent enough. It's not just the difference in energy volumes between ethanol and solar power, it's also that liquid fuel is easier to store. It's not an equal comparison you're making. But if the energy demand is skewed enough on the side of grid-connected datacenters, then economically solar power might become more attractive.

I think oligopoly on data is the main threat to this. Datacenters and hosters providing power to run whatever you want with whatever data you want are not the bottleneck for competition and good evolution.

Various data harvesting farms in which users roam are.

It's funny, I'm optimistic lately and feel like this family of technologies is slowly killing the oligopolies of previous generation. Well, not themselves, but the mechanisms that brought them into existence. Of course they too have moved on past those, but it's sort of an improvement.