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

51–60 of 64 posts

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

#51

Post by throw74774 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #48
throw74774 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All jobs are artificially kept, as would UBI be. They are all artifacts of the law. Money is a way to allocate resources, and technological progress depends on people having incentives to contribute. Do you think LLMs are a natural phenomenon?

> technological progress depends on people having incentives to contribute Does it? That stands in stark contrast to open source in general, where people contribute without any monetary incentives.

> where people contribute without any monetary incentives.

First of all you added in the word ‘monetary’, to straw-man the position.

Secondly, even if we run with your straw-man, I see little evidence this is true. Most successful projects are either corporately funded or begging for corporate funding. You see article after article here bemoaning the lack of funding for open source.

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

#52

Post by satvikpendem »

throw74774 wrote: post #49
satvikpendem wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Through government funds, as other public works projects are. Or if people want to privately create their own, they can do so, as long as the results are open.

Why should just LLMs be funded that way and not all software?

You're right, all software should be funded that way.

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

#53

Post by satvikpendem »

nickfromseattle wrote: post #50
satvikpendem wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said that was okay either. LLMs should be open source and open data. Yes, this viewpoint shares similarities with academic journals that also rent seek.

Thank you for the interesting discussion! > I never said that was okay either. LLMs should be open source and open data. > That is one reason why I abhor copyright, patents, and intellectual property in general. If it turns out that closed-source LLMs become the most valuable companies in the world, any thoughts on how to align / reconcile your ideals around the reality of how the technology has developed in my hypot…

There are multiple gradations of value. Linux exists even as Windows and macOS does also. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. It could be the case that only closed source LLMs are the most prevalent, but we have open source LLMs already available today that run on device and for free essentially. I don't necessarily see the world only moving towards closed source LLMs.

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

#54

Post by satvikpendem »

throw74774 wrote: post #51
satvikpendem wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> technological progress depends on people having incentives to contribute Does it? That stands in stark contrast to open source in general, where people contribute without any monetary incentives.

> where people contribute without any monetary incentives. First of all you added in the word ‘monetary’, to straw-man the position. Secondly, even if we run with your straw-man, I see little evidence this is true. Most successful projects are either corporately funded or begging for corporate funding. You see article after article here bemoaning the lack of funding for open source.

Okay, if we take any incentives in general, that means anything we do is incentivized. Me eating food is incentivized by me not starving to death. It's not a particularly enlightening argument, hence why I preemptively added "monetary," as we were already talking about economic incentives and UBI, but if you want to explain what other incentives you are talking about, please do so, I would want to hear.

In today's world with no UBI, it's no wonder people bemoan the lack of funding, since it's an issue of actually living to produce the OSS one wants to make. If we have something akin to UBI, where we don't force people to stall technological progress in order to satisfy having a job, then this issue would disappear.

And to be clear, I'm also not against corporate funding for OSS, so long as it does remain OSS at the end of the day. Linux has corporate funding yet maintains its OSS status.

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

#56

Post by satvikpendem »

throw74774 wrote: post #55
satvikpendem wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, all software should be funded that way.

Who would decide what to fund?

How are public works projects funded now? Same way. And if corporations want to fund certain projects too, they can. It's simple, extrapolate how we fund current projects and do the same with software, it's not that complicated.

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

#57

Post by throw74774 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #56
throw74774 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would decide what to fund?

How are public works projects funded now? Same way. And if corporations want to fund certain projects too, they can. It's simple, extrapolate how we fund current projects and do the same with software, it's not that complicated.

Earlier you said:

> In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity.

Now you are saying that LLMs, and maybe even all software, should only be funded by the approval of appointed government committees.

Do you not see the contradiction in your viewpoint?

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

#58

Post by Engineering-MD »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #26
mywittyname wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue ChatGPT is closer to restating copyrighted materials in a different way. And that is legally questionable. Whether that actually matters depends on how much money is at stake and how much each party cares to spend to enforce or protect their viewpoint. Allowing these systems to utilize copyrighted materials without compensating the copyright holder is a legal loophole the size of the sun. Then it becomes a…

As far as I can tell, restating materials in a different way does not infringe copyright.

It can be seen as a derived work. A translation of Harry Potter in to French, Japanese or Latin is not free from the copyright of the original work. That is literally restating materials in a different way.

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

#59

Post by satvikpendem »

throw74774 wrote: post #57
satvikpendem wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are public works projects funded now? Same way. And if corporations want to fund certain projects too, they can. It's simple, extrapolate how we fund current projects and do the same with software, it's not that complicated.

Earlier you said: > In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity. Now you are saying that LLMs, and maybe even all software, should only be funded by the approval of appointed government committees. Do you not see the contradiction in your viewpoint?

Did you miss the parts where I mentioned that private individuals and corporations can also fund their own software, as we do today? My point is that as long as code, models, and data are open source, we will be free to mix and match and improve upon them, instead of only having rich corporations hold them. One way to do so is to have the government fund projects and open source them, as an alternative to corporate closed source control.

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

#60

Post by throw74774 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #59
throw74774 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earlier you said: > In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity. Now you are saying that LLMs, and maybe even all software, should only be funded by the approval of appointed government committees. Do you not see the contradiction in your viewpoint?

Did you miss the parts where I mentioned that private individuals and corporations can also fund their own software, as we do today? My point is that as long as code, models, and data are open source, we will be free to mix and match and improve upon them, instead of only having rich corporations hold them. One way to do so is to have the government fund projects and open source them, as an alternative to corporate c…

> Did you miss the parts where I mentioned that private individuals and corporations can also fund their own software, as we do today?

You aren’t being honest.

Today we’re allowed to fund our own software and use it as we please for private purposes or to license it to others. Today there is no law forcing us to give it away.

This isn’t what you are proposing.

Post reply on HN