No, that misses the nuance entirely. An LLM returns one answer that it thinks is likely to be true. A search engine returns many answers one of which is either certainly true or (depending on what you're searching) is the literal source of truth.
There is a world of difference between these two results.
Ultimately the problem is that a single repository of all verifiably true human knowledge just doesn't exist and both search engines and LLMs are copes to deal with this fact.
I was just going to post this. Seems quite an obvious and significant distinction, that doesn’t need to provoke all the existential hand wringing. Making money off someone else’s content is a totally different moral and legal case.
That would be a wonderful outcome, if so. We need to protect our ecosystems from humans if they're to survive.
However, it won't happen because of wolf attacks. The big bad wolf is a fairy tale... Moose are orders of magnitude more dangerous to humans than wolves, and their reintroduction in Colorado does not keep humans away from wild spaces.
Are livestock lost to cold also compensated? Because that seems like it would create a perverse incentive not to build shelter (i.e. barns) for your livestock.
The common method in Europe is just to move or left the carcasses out, so they are scavenged by several animals. After a week wolves appeared and left traces, so it was paid as "wolf kill". This was known because some people put hidden cameras.
When bear kills started to being paid by an ecologist group there was an awful lot of scam attempts also. I think that paying for predator damage are counterproductive at best, and at worst "fossilize" as a system to scam taxers and reinforce scammers.
Is not much different than expecting to be paid if you go for a beach day and you are stung by a jellyfish, or it rained that day. There are old proven solutions to reduce drastically this loses, is just that farmers choose not to use them.
https://github.com/HermesApp/Hermes