How about we give humans access
This is called Sci-Hub and LibGen
Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
131–140 of 185 posts
Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Why not give everyone access for free?
Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suddenly it's "copyright infringement" to count the amount of times one word occurs after another word. I find this whole thing so amusing.
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
I don't think exact copies are what anybody is worried about. It really is the information itself. The GP's been lulled into thinking he owns the knowledge when he only owns (some) rights to the creative way he wrote it. It really is objectionable of him to want to restrict access. Intra-elite culture war is the perfect term to describe it.
Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
#134[dead]
Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
#135As 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…
How are you sure that what big ai is doing is “the increase in knowledge of human kind”?
It is good for their business model; but it may lead to monopoly unlike anything acm ever had and very dubious prospect for academia.
Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
#136As 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…
Why do you think big AI is going to just share all it’s ‘knowledge’?
Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
#137They probably already scraped it.
Through scihub, probably.
Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
#138They really think that their data is not already part of the models. Silly...
Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
#139Earlier 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…
Why do you think big AI is going to just share all it’s ‘knowledge’?
Exactly. Companies like Anthropic do not want open access. See their FUD against "distillation attacks"
Re: Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
My ACM papers are published in full on my website. Not preprints. In fact thats the only reason I have a website, just in case someone actually wants to read them. The copyright agreement (actually copyright assignment/transfer) with ACM has had a carve-out for this case in it for a while, but it has to be a personal website.
I thought it was more liberal than that but there was always a “preprint” exemption that would get you around it.