Raw LLM Responses

I've had this same thought and it seems to be a good solution. However, the strange thing is that at least the NYT isn't using the losing money argument. [According to Wired](http://www.wired.com/story/the-internets-most-powerful-archiving-tool-is-in-mortal-peril), their spokesman said: > The issue is that Times content on the Internet Archive is being used by AI companies in violation of copyright law to directly compete with us. Same with USA Today, which stated: > [It had] concerns over potential misuse by AI companies of content sets crawled for preservation purposes. Neither of these responses mention that people are reading their articles for free. (Of course, that could be *implied* by "violation of copyright law", but if that's a major motivation, why not say it?) To be clear, I don't doubt loss of income is part of the reason – they are part of the group that [took down 12ft.io](http://www.newsmediaalliance.org/takedown-of-12ftio) – but this solution wouldn't address their complaints. It doesn't really matter whether it is trained on one week or one year old content. Maybe that's why they've taken this angle? So they can end-around this solution?