Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

standard.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#31

Post by torstenvl »

blibble wrote: post #14
torstenvl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> answer questions for people without having to buy the book.. is that really fair? Yes. It's fair because that happens all the time with non-AI intelligences (i.e., people). No author has the right to prevent me from discussing a book with someone. If I were a clinician and incorporated that exercise into my practice, as long as I wasn't copying any content (e.g., worksheets, scoring tables, etc.), then I owe nothin…

> No author has the right to prevent me from discussing a book with someone. a lossy compression function is not "someone"

Oh? And what section of title 17 does that ostensible distinction implicate?

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#32

Post by [deleted] »

nickfromseattle wrote: post #29
torstenvl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> answer questions for people without having to buy the book.. is that really fair? Yes. It's fair because that happens all the time with non-AI intelligences (i.e., people). No author has the right to prevent me from discussing a book with someone. If I were a clinician and incorporated that exercise into my practice, as long as I wasn't copying any content (e.g., worksheets, scoring tables, etc.), then I owe nothin…

Are you OK with the developers of LLMs capturing the most value of every incremental piece of content created by humans in perpetuity? The difference is scale. A human can use their learnings from copyrighted work to get a job making $80,000/year. An LLM can use their learnings from copyrighted work to become the biggest, most profitable company ever.

[deleted]

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#33

Post by JonChesterfield »

mindcrime wrote: post #3
nicenewtemp84 wrote: post #2

My favorite anti depression book is Feeling Good by Dr. Burns. I especially like the "if that were true, it would mean that..." exercise in the book, where you drill down to the root cause of your negative thoughts. So I asked chatgpt about the book, and the exercise, and how to do it, and examples of the 9 cognitive distortions you're supposed to label your responses with. It was very helpful and knew the material w…

If you wrote a book on a very rare subject that you were basically the only popular source of detailed info on... And now these models just answer questions for people without having to buy the book.. is that really fair? What if a person bought a copy of the book, read it and learned the material, and then provided advice to people based on the material. I think most people would say that that is fair. So why is it…

What if one person bought the book, copied it, and distributed it for negligible cost to anyone with a passing interest in the contents? Sounds pretty similar to copyright infringement.

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#34

Post by throw74774 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #30
nickfromseattle wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you OK with the developers of LLMs capturing the most value of every incremental piece of content created by humans in perpetuity? The difference is scale. A human can use their learnings from copyrighted work to get a job making $80,000/year. An LLM can use their learnings from copyrighted work to become the biggest, most profitable company ever.

> Are you OK with the developers of LLMs capturing the most value of every incremental piece of content created by humans in perpetuity? If it helps humanity as a whole, sure. Artificial gate-keeping based on economic factors such as people being able to keep their $80k jobs is not justifiable to me to stop technological progress; one could have said the exact same thing centuries ago with the advent of any number of…

How does it help humanity as a whole if nobody is able to capture any value for their work?

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#35

Post by satvikpendem »

throw74774 wrote: post #34
satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you OK with the developers of LLMs capturing the most value of every incremental piece of content created by humans in perpetuity? If it helps humanity as a whole, sure. Artificial gate-keeping based on economic factors such as people being able to keep their $80k jobs is not justifiable to me to stop technological progress; one could have said the exact same thing centuries ago with the advent of any number of…

How does it help humanity as a whole if nobody is able to capture any value for their work?

What kind of "value" are they capturing?

In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity. I don't want anyone necessarily trying to capture rent-seeking "value" out of their work that cannot be extended by others. That is one reason why I abhor copyright, patents, and intellectual property in general.

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#36

Post by DANmode »

nicenewtemp84 wrote: post #2

My favorite anti depression book is Feeling Good by Dr. Burns. I especially like the "if that were true, it would mean that..." exercise in the book, where you drill down to the root cause of your negative thoughts. So I asked chatgpt about the book, and the exercise, and how to do it, and examples of the 9 cognitive distortions you're supposed to label your responses with. It was very helpful and knew the material w…

People and information want to be free.

I'm sure the author would have no problem with everyone in the world receiving a free summary — once they know they've been fed and cared for.

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#37

Post by throw74774 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #35
throw74774 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it help humanity as a whole if nobody is able to capture any value for their work?

What kind of "value" are they capturing? In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity. I don't want anyone necessarily trying to capture rent-seeking "value" out of their work that cannot be extended by others. That is one reason why I abhor copyright, patents, and intellectual property in general.

You cannot extend anyone’s work if you have no food or resources.

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#38

Post by genocidicbunny »

mindcrime wrote: post #16
exabrial wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Answer is pretty obvious: One is a computer program, literally designed to pilfer copyrighted works, the other is a human being.

Why is it "pilfering" when the computer program does it, but "learning" when a human does it?

Because we say so? We get to define the rules here, and there's no imperative to treat the two as the same thing.

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#39

Post by casey2 »

throw74774 wrote: post #34
satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you OK with the developers of LLMs capturing the most value of every incremental piece of content created by humans in perpetuity? If it helps humanity as a whole, sure. Artificial gate-keeping based on economic factors such as people being able to keep their $80k jobs is not justifiable to me to stop technological progress; one could have said the exact same thing centuries ago with the advent of any number of…

How does it help humanity as a whole if nobody is able to capture any value for their work?

Does "work" here mean buying rights to books? And since Pearson aren't paying their fair share, why should the public do the work of holding a trial?

Re: Pearson taking legal action over use of its textbooks to train language models

#40

Post by throw74774 »

casey2 wrote: post #39
throw74774 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it help humanity as a whole if nobody is able to capture any value for their work?

Does "work" here mean buying rights to books? And since Pearson aren't paying their fair share, why should the public do the work of holding a trial?

What do you mean they aren’t paying their fair share? You just said they bought the rights.

Also it seems like you are saying we should just pre-judge cases without using the courts. Basically just end the rule of law. Not sure that’s a good plan.

Post reply on HN