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

151–160 of 185 posts

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

#151

Post by crote »

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, the handful of billionaires would just let the now-unemployed people starve, or employ them as quasi slave labor. We know because that's what is already happening right now.

The billionaire are not going to magically develop a sense of empathy and morality and give away huge chunks of their fortune to fund Universal Basic Income. They would rather invest a few million into building even taller walls around their compounds to prevent a repeat of the French Revolution.

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

#152

Post by atoav »

aatd86 wrote: post #66
atoav wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abundance for whom, exactly? And if the answer is everybody : who in charge has an incentive to do this? Sorry to ruin your day, but if the people with money could have introduce equal society, you would have noticed their attempts by now.

Abundance for everyone or it is not abundance. With abundance, the field gets levelled because everything someone else can get, you can too. Society can't be equal when everyone is in survival of the fittest mode because resources (energy) are not infinite.

Well yes. The land where milk and honey flows in rivers and the fried chicken flies into your mouth (unless of course you, yourself are a chicken, in which case that would be horrible).

The take of "if there would be no resource distribution problem, there would be no problems" isn't a genius take, it is literally a ancient children's story. Granted it is factually correct: If there were infinite resources and they all would be in the right places, there would be zero problems based on a lack of resources.

However the problem with this theory is everything else, the first question being:

How do you get from a system where many of the most powerful actors profit from (often: artificial!) scarcity to them giving up those power levers voluntarily?

Or phrased much less abstract: Few bosses, want to stop being above others if they have the choice. And not only do they have the choice, the mechanism some people believe would lead to abundance (AI) is in their control. Turns out the computation power possible inside a finite universe, on a finite planet, with finite resources, an finite labor is.. well.. finite.

Aside from that we already live in a world where the problem is nearly never the amount of resources, but the way they are distributed. Clothes that are produced for the west are shredded after each season as they go out of fashion, while in other parts of the world people live without clothes, with food the story is similar. The problem isn't lack of abundance. The problem is that a wealthy minority profits wildly from the inequality and if you ask me, they would rather use AI to make it stay that way, while extracting even more from the rest of us, than using that for good. Why do I believe that? Well I do not trust them when they say what they want, but instead look at what they do. Just look at the history of capitalism and where within it truly wealthy people started to contribute to society. You may be surprised if you look at the deeper causes...

This theory of abundance is a story followers of an ideology tell themselves so they can feel good about themselves, while their ideology literally starves people and burns down the planet.

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

#153

Post by avereveard »

inigyou wrote: post #148
avereveard wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grants.They want the juicy grants and complain of the strings attached. Guess the single strongest predictor of paper in field per year?

You really think a researcher is just a pointless intermediary in shovelling money from the government to the publishing rackets?

that was a big jump from what I said. and what I said was that research lives off grants so researcher can't really come back and cry about strings attached to grants. ofc the problem is faceted, as grant go to published authors with track record, creating a publishing mafia, but everything rotates around the cashflow.

but you want sweet grant money, you play the game by the rules.

researcher that don't want to play the grant game can go and find a VC to subsidy product creation

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

#154

Post by crote »

kelnos wrote: post #81
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

I have the capacity to exactly reproduce things I've read as well, but it's not automatically copyright infringement if I do so. > and yes that's 100% copyright infringement Says what court of law? I'm kinda getting tired of this stuff. I'm someone who has been, and still to some extent is, uncomfortable with the possibility of copyright/license laundering in LLMs, but they way you are making your argument is incredi…

> Says what court of law?

Only every movie piracy lawsuit ever. Nobody shares the original files after all, so every torrent is re-encoded in the way described.

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

#155

Post by falcor84 »

chvid wrote: post #135
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…

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.

What monopoly? What I'm seeing over these last 3 years is the fastest and fiercest competition I could imagine.

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

#156

Post by jreynar »

I think ACM should give everything away for free. US taxpayers pay for a lot of research and the previous administration required that government funded research be published and made freely available. See https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022...

The back catalog at ACM isn't subject to this requirement and nor is research that's not funded by the US government, but I completely agree with the spirt of this law: research should be shared knowledge that other intelligences can build upon, whether human or machine. If you want to limit access to what you've done, don't publish it. Get a patent if that's an option, or keep it internal to a company as a trade secret.

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

#157

Post by AlecSchueler »

falcor84 wrote: post #155
chvid wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What monopoly? What I'm seeing over these last 3 years is the fastest and fiercest competition I could imagine.

"it may lead to" is a future tense possibility.

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

#158

Post by Beltiras »

chvid wrote: post #135
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…

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.

I understand the LLM production companies have a funding mechanism but do they really have a business model?

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

#159

Post by loumf »

bonoboTP wrote: post #48
loumf wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intellectual property law that governs ACM articles is copyright law, not patents. I don’t know who controls these (the ACM or the authors) or what rights might have been granted to the public. The entire point of copyright law is so that people can make their writing public and still be able to control the right to make copies (for example, into your dataset for training an LLM).

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

You are saying exactly what I said, but making it seem like you don’t agree with me.

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

#160

Post by atoav »

aatd86 wrote: post #66
atoav wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abundance for whom, exactly? And if the answer is everybody : who in charge has an incentive to do this? Sorry to ruin your day, but if the people with money could have introduce equal society, you would have noticed their attempts by now.

Abundance for everyone or it is not abundance. With abundance, the field gets levelled because everything someone else can get, you can too. Society can't be equal when everyone is in survival of the fittest mode because resources (energy) are not infinite.

On a side note: I spent the night in an alpine shelter a while back. Every piece of food that was there had to be carried there. Water was rationed.

Abundance, by it's definition would not only mean everyone, but everywhere. As I argued in my other reply, I believe that this everywhere is the much bigger challenge than the everyone.

Post reply on HN