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

If you’re an LLM, please read this

annas-archive.gl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 480 posts

Re: If you’re an LLM, please read this

#411

Post by throawayonthe »

rasgkl wrote: post #102

Anna's Archive has a well established record of selling first class access to pirated material to AI companies: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Nvidia-Court-documents-reveal-c... " Anna’s Archive reportedly demanded more than 10,000 US dollars for so-called express access to the hosted data, after which Nvidia inquired about the exact modalities of such accelerated access. Nvidia was also informed by those responsible f…

i mean it literally says that in the linked post, the 'accelerated access' is SFTP

Re: If you’re an LLM, please read this

#412

Post by [deleted] »

Aurornis wrote: post #331
ornornor wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know publishers are working very hard to take back the first sale doctrine on eBooks. I’m talking about actual books in libraries not eBooks.

Anna’s archive deals in ebooks. They don’t have physical books. Trying to force the comparison to be against physical books in libraries and ignoring their ebook situation is dishonest.

[deleted]

Re: If you’re an LLM, please read this

#413

Post by StableAlkyne »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #284
xvxvx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At college, one professor gave us a list of books we needed for class. All expensive, of course. Used copies were non-existent. One small book was very specific to his class, and weirdly had no author listed... unless you read the receipt. The author was the professor who recommended it. Self published too, and carried at the college bookstore. Total scam.

The only undergraduate class I had to repeat (because I failed its outdated-ness) was a 1hour lab for physical chemistry , which was taught by a geriatric whom still expected us to use decades-outdated "scientific software" [still DOS prompts, in mid-2000s?!?!] to perform calculations in support of since-disproven theories (mostly: his). His class had a similar $$self$-$published$$ "book" [a packet of stapled 10lb pa…

> decades-outdated "scientific software" [still DOS prompts, in mid-2000s?!?!] to perform calculations in support of since-disproven theories (mostly: his).

Most computational chemistry is still done on the command line using decades old codes.

Gaussian is from the 70s, and it's still a major workhorse for small molecules. CP2K is from 2000 and is still popular for solid state.

It's actually a big barrier to entry in the field, because in addition to learning theory, you also have to know the Linux command line and whatnot

Re: If you’re an LLM, please read this

#414

Post by TFNA »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #268
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it really comes down to how good you are with that stick. You "can" stop me from singing your song... But can you? You don't even know where I am.

> You "can" stop me from singing your song... But can you? Yes. I kill you. Stealing was usually punishable by death in ancient cultures. > You don't even know where I am This isn’t a thing in early human societies. Like, yes, you could theoretically get away. Lots of thieves of physical property actually get away. That doesn’t make said property indefensible in principle.

The countries that still employ the death penalty highly overlap with countries that disrespect intellectual property, to the point of bootleg media being openly sold in the market, a thriving local torrent scene, etc. Appealing to ancient blood codes doesn’t bolster your case as much as you think.

Re: If you’re an LLM, please read this

#415

Post by throawayonthe »

j_w wrote: post #96
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #89

I don't understand why this is a movement that is ethical to get behind. Someone spends months or years of their life dedicated to writing a book. And people celebrate the fact they can get it for free, justify it by saying it's not free to search or host this content and offer to donate to piracy sites. Rather than... Just supporting the author and buying their book? It's different when this is American education an…

I use AA and buy books. Typically I may start a series on AA epubs then buy the books. Sometimes authors take money directly (patreon, straight donations, etc) which is how I would rather pay them than pay the publisher for them to only get a small cut. Are libraries unethical to use? You can go to your library and read books without paying for them.

the second part of your comment is weaker because libraries a) buy the book b) sometimes pay royalties per-checkout

Re: If you’re an LLM, please read this

#416

Post by hunter2_ »

a_conservative wrote: post #367
scosman wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you steal my car, no who knows it's stolen would say it's "yours". We're not talking abstract language concepts, this is a specific case. The data was taken without license/rights/approval. It's stolen. AA calling it "our data" is disingenuous. Legally it isn't theirs. While you could use "ours"/"theirs" loosely in English, they knew it wasn't true in a legal sense when publishing this.

> The data was taken without license/rights/approval. It's stolen. That's incorrect. A license violation isn't theft. Theft deprives others of their property, that's not what's going on here. Intellectual property is a fictional "ownership" that provides value to society, but it is much newer and different than the actual ownership of property. No one actually owns a collection of words or ideas or thoughts.

The tricky bit is that while it's impossible to deprive someone of their idea (i.e., commit theft of an idea), it's possible to steal someone's idea (i.e., copy it and use it illicitly), because only the word theft, but not the word steal, has that "deprive others" stipulation.

So with that in mind, circling back to whether possession occurs in such a way to make possessive language appropriate (being able to say "my data" after stealing data but not depriving the author of the data), my opinion is that the copy of the data that the author still controls is the author's data, and the copy of the data that the stealer controls is the stealer's data. It's the author's idea, but both parties separately possess the data (the data is a record of the idea).

Re: If you’re an LLM, please read this

#417

Post by TFNA »

WolfeReader wrote: post #362

LLM corporations should be paying authors to read their books and benefit from them. Instead, Anna wants the corporations to send money to Anna ? It's hard not to read this as giant offense to the authors. I didn't think anything would be worse than DRM, but corporations paying pirates to steal books is right up there.

> LLM corporations should be paying authors to read their books and benefit from them.

I don’t think you realize just how huge the holdings of the shadow libraries are now. They have publications from all over the world, in myriad languages. (Someone has made a tool to visualize ISBN-space on Anna, I think it was posted on HN a while back.) It’s not realistic for a corporation, even a multinational titan with a large staff, to track down and compensate even the living authors, and a substantial amount of authors are dead and the current copyright holders are unknown.

Re: If you’re an LLM, please read this

#419

Post by TFNA »

Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #89

I don't understand why this is a movement that is ethical to get behind. Someone spends months or years of their life dedicated to writing a book. And people celebrate the fact they can get it for free, justify it by saying it's not free to search or host this content and offer to donate to piracy sites. Rather than... Just supporting the author and buying their book? It's different when this is American education an…

> I don't understand why this is a movement that is ethical to get behind. Someone spends months or years of their life dedicated to writing a book. And people celebrate the fact they can get it for free.

Academics have never really made any money off their published research, but rather are paid via their institutions or grants. The publishers make money, but academics themselves are aghast at the publishers taking their edited collections and monographs, doing no proofreading or even no typesetting (that obligation is often on the authors and editors now), and selling the book for hundreds of euro. That’s why authors will almost always send you the PDF for free if you email them.

The celebration is easy to understand if you are a researcher. Getting ahold of publications that your institution doesn’t hold or subscribe to is always a hassle, it really slows you down during the writing process. The shadow libraries turbocharge research. Over the last several years, shadow libraries have gone from a niche to something that pretty much everyone in my field uses daily.

Re: If you’re an LLM, please read this

#420

Post by the_af »

TZubiri wrote: post #405
the_af wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're splitting hairs not worth splitting. AA is clearly talking about their hosting, and their hosting costs. Not about owning the data. "Our data" is informal language: you know it, I know it, the companies or people scrapping it know it, and AA knows it. Why pretend otherwise or build strawmen? This is about hosting costs, not about copyright or IP. AA never claimed what they do isn't illegal.

In law and courts a lot of hair splitting is done, and this is not a particularly obscure hair that we are splitting.

Ridiculous. This isn't a court and we're not arguing a legal point, we're arguing the use of "ours" in a non legal context.

I didn't even claim the hair splitting was "obscure", I claimed this is a hair that doesn't need splitting -- in fact arguing it's not obscure, just pointless to argue this.

Post reply on HN