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

Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

cacm.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

#71

Post by MASNeo »

Cynddl wrote: post #51
maCDzP wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was a non profit that trained the model - would that change your mind?

The issue here is ACM focusing on licensing. A non profit would not be able to pay ACM for access. Hence why this policy is hypocritical: it gives more power to the larger players and undermines smaller actors in the field who have fewer resources.

Non Profit != No Money

A non profit could well pay, and there are plenty of reasons frontier models should be managed by non profit. After all, why allow a for profit to benefit from free contributions?

Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

#72

Post by 20k »

hparadiz wrote: post #64
20k wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI has the capacity to exactly reproduce its training data, just because something is a transformed representation does not mean that it isn't copying it in some fashion. The JPEG format 'just' counts the frequencies in an 8x8 block of pixels, and yes that's 100% copyright infringement

The courts don't agree with you and I don't either. Now what?

Courts have ordered AI models to remove song lyrics from their training data, they most definitely do not agree with you

Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

#73

Post by cwillu »

bonoboTP wrote: post #67
sharts wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents shouldn’t exist.

Patents were invented to incentivize disclosure of inventions and prevent extended secrecy. In exchange for the public disclosure (which allows others to experiment with the idea without selling yet), you get to keep exclusivity for N years.

And?

Currently patents are predominantly used to prevent interoperability and impose costs.

Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

#75

Post by MASNeo »

dominotw wrote: post #26
m-hodges wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do humans not have access? https://dl.acm.org/openaccess

it is open like open in openai

Made my day. Thank you! I have to remember that. Best thing I have read in the entire day.

Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

#76

Post by visarga »

20k wrote: post #53
bonoboTP wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright protects against reprinting or reproducing the wording and expression, not using the idea expressed in there in novel contexts.

AI reproduces copyrighted work exactly in many cases, so it clearly infringes copyright in this sense The output of it is also a derivative work, and derivative works also infringe copyright. Its only not a problem if you ignore copyright entirely Humans are the only entities that get to enjoy special idea-learning-exemptions, not AI

> The output of it is also a derivative work,

A short session is just retrieval, a long session is always unique. The more the user writes the more it diverges from any content in the dataset.

Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

#77

Post by visarga »

20k wrote: post #61
bonoboTP wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The verbatim reproduction is clearly a red herring and not the main use case. Nobody reads novels (or science papers) by prompting ChatGPT to give the next paragraph. Derivative work or transformative? It's not the same.

AI code generation often outputs exact copies of code that exists in the wild. I've seen it output chunks from research papers unprompted as well, its a big problem, or blending two papers together in a salad AI works also clearly aren't transformative in many cases. If you ask it a question about a paper, it'll quote bits of the paper at you. That serves as an exact substitute of the original work. If you ask it for…

As long as it is not substantially similar to training set it should be OK to reuse ideas. Ideas should not be protected by copyright or we can't create anything. We should not accept "vibe copyrights".

Everyone treats the human user of the AI as furniture, but they steer the whole process into unique directions.

Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

#78

Post by hparadiz »

20k wrote: post #72
hparadiz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts don't agree with you and I don't either. Now what?

Courts have ordered AI models to remove song lyrics from their training data, they most definitely do not agree with you

derivative work & fair use. end of.

Not only are you not winning this one but I'm gonna laugh at you the entire time.

Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

#79

Post by kelnos »

bonoboTP wrote: post #57
Cynddl wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is ACM focusing on licensing. A non profit would not be able to pay ACM for access. Hence why this policy is hypocritical: it gives more power to the larger players and undermines smaller actors in the field who have fewer resources.

Why did you sign off your copyright to ACM then? If you kept the copyright and prevented others from distributing your work, you could be the sole distributor and negotiate the price with the AI company yourself.

Because if you don't publish in academia, you might as well be dead. And the terms for most places to publish are similar.

It's a racket.

Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library

#80

Post by kelnos »

20k wrote: post #53
bonoboTP wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright protects against reprinting or reproducing the wording and expression, not using the idea expressed in there in novel contexts.

AI reproduces copyrighted work exactly in many cases, so it clearly infringes copyright in this sense The output of it is also a derivative work, and derivative works also infringe copyright. Its only not a problem if you ignore copyright entirely Humans are the only entities that get to enjoy special idea-learning-exemptions, not AI

Are you a lawyer that has tested this in court, or is this just what you want the reality to be?

As someone with lots of open source code out there that has likely been used as LLM training data, I'm very sympathetic to this point of view, but that doesn't seem to be the legal reality. Much of this has not been fully tested in court, but it seems likely that LLM training is not copyright infringement, as long as the training material itself was acquired legally.

Post reply on HN