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

121–130 of 185 posts

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

#121

Post by vasco »

maCDzP wrote: post #47
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…

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

Being a non-profit is just a tax arrangement, it shouldn't change any of your opinions. What does the tax rate of who does an action have to do with the action being good or bad?

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

#122

Post by evenhash »

Aurornis wrote: post #104
Cynddl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this…

> Nobody is saying we’re going to make the original content inaccessible through the previous means after the LLMs are trained on it.

Is that not why they’re shredding the books when they’re done with them?

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

#123

Post by deepnlp-contact »

I asked a mathematician the same question about whether we should allow AI systems to access all research papers and ideas, potentially putting their future careers at risk. He was very pessimistic about how human knowledge will compete with AI-generated proofs flooding the market.

Especially in mathematics, many specialized areas have fewer than 100 people worldwide who are capable of determining whether a result is correct or not. The mathematics community will certainly be willing to use AI to assist with their research, but they may strongly object to a flood of AI-generated mathematics papers produced by others.

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

#124

Post by PeterStuer »

hmry wrote: post #99
moi2388 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

So why not license it for free to those model companies that also share their models with the public? Why would Moonshot not get free access?

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

#125

Post by PeterStuer »

aatd86 wrote: post #65
layer8 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty clear that the premise won’t be becoming reality.

Well, once there is no more jobs, or once a large enough number of people are made redundant, it will mechanically happen. Future is all about research and entertainment. That is why tiktok stars and soccer players get so much money. All that being based on DARPA research, I mean the internet. People just want to have fun. Du pain et des jeux.

No, you will be a 'greeter' at a venue, a cleaner cheaper than the equivalent robot, a yes-mam serv in some corporate's division pfiefdom, or doing some endless sysiphus task for the ethernity of your days to get your daily ration after you get your eyeball scanned to confirm your identity at all points in the system. Can't let the masses run wild.

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

#126

Post by rbanffy »

kannanvijayan wrote: post #114
arjie wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think your example hinges more on the fact that $10/hr is a desperation wage. It's not enough to buy you a life where you're not stepped on by others. The further up that chain you move the more other things start to matter, at least for most people. If you're offering me $300/hr and the other guy is offering me $400/hr, a whole lot of things start to matter more than the differential. That gets at the "fungibility…

> If you're offering me $300/hr and the other guy is offering me $400/hr, a whole lot of things start to matter more than the differential.

I’m not sure which Catholic saint said that, but one requires a minimum of material conditions in order to practice spiritual virtues.

> when you can afford to eat, when you can afford a house, when you can afford to not work anymore, and so on

When you can buy a government, a couple billion seems like a small loss.

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

#127

Post by chrisjj »

protocolture wrote: post #108
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.

>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. And when the open weights models distill all the content out of the majors anyway?

And drop the atributions. What will the ACM say then?

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

#128

Post by darkwater »

bonoboTP wrote: post #89
kelnos wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, then next question is why are you in academia? To share knowledge with humanity, bring the Promethean light to the mortals or something I guess. But then if they use it for productive things that make money, that's too smelly, that's too practical, too dirty, or what?

What a petty view of others you have :( What should they do then? Just shrug and move on, the machine must continue to grind no matter what? Why there is always this request for 100% purity if you dare to criticize the system or part of it?

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

#129

Post by b112 »

evenhash wrote: post #122
Aurornis wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this…

> Nobody is saying we’re going to make the original content inaccessible through the previous means after the LLMs are trained on it. Is that not why they’re shredding the books when they’re done with them?

How is this a fair and reasonable assessment?

From here:

https://x.com/HedgieMarkets/status/2081534588485296565

A quote:

A federal judge ruled the practice is fair use because eliminating the original means only one copy exists at a time.

So no, the reason isn't to keep that information, even from competitors. It's about a legal ruling, which allows them to scan said books without infringing copyright. Judicial decisions and case law have lead to this outcome.

Please stop spreading rumours without any validity.

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

#130

Post by avereveard »

bonoboTP wrote: post #89
kelnos wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, then next question is why are you in academia? To share knowledge with humanity, bring the Promethean light to the mortals or something I guess. But then if they use it for productive things that make money, that's too smelly, that's too practical, too dirty, or what?

Grants.They want the juicy grants and complain of the strings attached.

Guess the single strongest predictor of paper in field per year?

Post reply on HN