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

91–100 of 185 posts

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

#91

Post by Cynddl »

joshka wrote: post #83
Cynddl wrote: post #32

As a researcher with many articles in the ACM library, I have to say this is a masterclass in hypocrisy. Obviously, lawyers can decipher the terms of ACM publishing contracts and Creative Commons licences to determine if this will be acceptable or not. But ACM is not a company, it's a non-profit founded in 1947 to represent scientists. I would be surprised if a majority of ACM members were to say yes should we ask th…

How do you square away the idea that you do science for the increase in knowledge of human kind, but then say that a particular use of that knowledge is verboten? I get the copyright aspect of this and I'm not arguing that here. I'm more asking about the moral / ethical idea of choosing who can benefit from your science. Obviously there are the moral / ethical arguments about AI in general here to weigh against - tho…

Good question. Unfortunately, academic knowledge is widely ‘verboten’ already. Everything under paywall, researchers having to pay up to $10,000 to publish in open access in some venues, rare books unavailable even to top universities. Access to knowledge and information is increasingly difficult for everyone.

That said, what matters here is the social contract, what do I bring to society and what do we get from tech companies. For most people around the world, access to the typical leading models is out of reach. Not many on this planet can pay the subscriptions (or even API keys) that offer access to the best models. So I'm not buying the argument that tech companies are broadening access. What we're creating is a increasingly discriminatory society where the few get access to information, and the many don't.

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

#92

Post by joshka »

Cynddl wrote: post #91
joshka wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square away the idea that you do science for the increase in knowledge of human kind, but then say that a particular use of that knowledge is verboten? I get the copyright aspect of this and I'm not arguing that here. I'm more asking about the moral / ethical idea of choosing who can benefit from your science. Obviously there are the moral / ethical arguments about AI in general here to weigh against - tho…

Good question. Unfortunately, academic knowledge is widely ‘verboten’ already. Everything under paywall, researchers having to pay up to $10,000 to publish in open access in some venues, rare books unavailable even to top universities. Access to knowledge and information is increasingly difficult for everyone. That said, what matters here is the social contract, what do I bring to society and what do we get from tech…

Thanks for the reply here.

I guess I have some perspectives on a bunch of this. I'm for open sharing of academic work for all (but I'm not an academic, so my perspective is a consumer), so inferring your perspective here I think we agree on that. I maintain many open source (MIT/Apache2 licensed) libraries, and I've also worked in big tech (Amazon, OpenAI). I believe both in the idea of collective commons but also in the ideas that there should be the ability of people to sell software. There's tension in that social contract similarly, and it gets more complex when you look at copyleft.

I guess I'd be disappointed if this was just allowing big labs access and not more broadly allowing access to the ACM library for smaller open source models. Very much in agreement with your last points there.

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

#94

Post by hparadiz »

20k wrote: post #86
hparadiz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

derivative work & fair use. end of. Not only are you not winning this one but I'm gonna laugh at you the entire time.

Ok, but courts haven't made those rulings yet so good luck with that

Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)

Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025)

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

#95

Post by arjie »

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.

Everybody gives more power to the larger players. You won't work for me for $10/hr but you'll work for a guy who has more money for more. There's nothing wrong with that. Money is just a fungible unit representing value offered.

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

#96

Post by hparadiz »

bonoboTP wrote: post #90
hparadiz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's way too much hand waving on this topic. It is legal to produce copywritten work. If I draw Pikachu the drawing is mine. Legally. I am simply unable to make money on it. I can give it away if I want with zero liability. I could even hang the drawing up in my restaurant as a decoration. No big deal. What I can't do is use that drawing as my mascot or branding. We have an entirely separate process to determine i…

Let's not mix copyright and trademark in mixed phrases like "infringing on a copyright / trademark". The two are very different concepts with different goals. The main question in the "AI image generator generates a Pikachu image" is whether the AI company serving that image generator to you is violating the copyright or not. Because they make money when doing so (API / subscription cost), and so it's like selling im…

That question is irrelevant. Artists may be hired to reproduce copywritten work without the consent of the copyright owner. In this case an LLM is no different from Photoshop. It is a tool. Nothing more.

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

#97

Post by 20k »

hparadiz wrote: post #94
20k wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but courts haven't made those rulings yet so good luck with that

Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025)

Did... you read any of these?

Fair use is a defence against copyright infringement. Ie you actively say that you *have* committed copyright infringement, but you're allowed to do it under fair use doctrine to train the model. That says nothing about the purposes the model is used for

There's also these parts:

> its use of pirated books to create such library does not constitute fair use.

Which indicates that there are tight bounds depending on the ethics of how the content was obtained

Similarly with the second one

>Meta moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ cause of action for direct copyright infringement only to the extent that it was premised on a theory that the software comprising LLaMA is itself an infringing derivative work.

We're talking specifically about the output of the models being infringing, not whether or not the models themselves are infringing. If you read onwards

>Plaintiffs’ claim for vicarious copyright infringement failed because the complaint did not allege that any output generated by LLaMA contained protectable expression that recast, transformed or adapted the books. Without “an infringing output, there can be no vicarious infringement.”

Which strongly indicates the precise opposite of what you're saying, if you actually like, read the rulings

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

#99

Post by hmry »

moi2388 wrote: post #62
Cynddl wrote: post #32

As a researcher with many articles in the ACM library, I have to say this is a masterclass in hypocrisy. Obviously, lawyers can decipher the terms of ACM publishing contracts and Creative Commons licences to determine if this will be acceptable or not. But ACM is not a company, it's a non-profit founded in 1947 to represent scientists. I would be surprised if a majority of ACM members were to say yes should we ask th…

You mean the knowledge you gathered with public grants, with a public paid salary, yet don’t want to make freely available to the public? Yeah, too bad

This is about the ACM licensing it to for-profit AI companies, who will then make you pay a subscription to access the knowledge. Not about making it "freely available to the public."

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

#100

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Cynddl wrote: post #32

As a researcher with many articles in the ACM library, I have to say this is a masterclass in hypocrisy. Obviously, lawyers can decipher the terms of ACM publishing contracts and Creative Commons licences to determine if this will be acceptable or not. But ACM is not a company, it's a non-profit founded in 1947 to represent scientists. I would be surprised if a majority of ACM members were to say yes should we ask th…

I’m pretty sure most people who have papers in the ACM digital library already have “preprints” in other freely accessible locations, especially for papers written in the last two decades. LLMS have been able to search/find most of my papers for long time now.

The peer review system was broken before AI, so I’m not sure what your point is there.

Post reply on HN