I don’t know. The public’s perception - encouraged by the AI labs because of copyright concerns - is that the outputs of the models are entirely new content created by the model. Search results, on the other hand, are very clearly someone else’s content. It’s therefore not unfair to hold the model creators responsible for the content the model outputs in a different way than search engines are held responsible for content they link, and therefore also not unfair for model creators to worry about this. It is also fair to point this out as something I neglected to identify as an important permutation of “safety.”

I would also be remiss to not note that there is a movement to hold search engines responsible for content they link to, for censorious ends. So it is unfortunately not as inconsistent as it may seem, even if you treat the model outputs as dependent on their inputs.

You could just as easily argue that model creators don't own the model either—it's like charging admission to someone else's library.

Are you saying chatbots don't offer anything useful over search engines? That's clearly not the case or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's one thing to have a pile of chemistry text books and another to hire a professional chemist telling you exactly what to do and what to avoid.

> Are you saying chatbots don't offer anything useful over search engines? That's clearly not the case or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, but that is the value that's clear as of today—RAGs. Everything else is just assuming someone figures out a way to make them useful one day in a more general sense.

Anyway, even on the search engine front they still need to figure out how to get these chatbots to cite their sources outside of RAGs or it's still just a precursor to a search to actually verify what it spits out. Perplexity is the only one I know that's capable of this and I haven't looked closely; it could just be a glorified search engine.

Search engines 'censor' their results frequently.