Not just on the basis of what you publish, but on what you contribute to larger AI models. So if you go to a large database and, somehow, convert it into an AI-readable form, that should count as good money. It’s not much worse than publishing an important article, however it depends on the quality of the archive. As it stands today, you won’t get credit for that. Instead you can be expected to turn the archive into articles or a book, even if that means getting very little AIS data. Converting data into books takes a long time – is that what people should be doing?
Articles are still listed below this level, as jstor appears to be “feeding” the written content of large AI models. Wikipedia contributions should account for dwell time, and any “difficult for AI to access data set” should be accounted for more. Soon it won’t matter if people read your data offering, as long as AIs do.
So we’re all going to do this, right? After all, “how much do you really contribute to science” is clearly the standard we use, right? OK?
Source link