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

161–170 of 185 posts

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

#161

Post by loumf »

kelnos wrote: post #80
20k wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even after they decide, it is ok for people to disagree and work to overturn those decisions. You could just be a person that _wants_ a different reality. We have political mechanisms to do that.

I am not personally affected because I don’t mind LLMs using my code and writing to learn. I have open source under MIT and similar licenses. I didn’t foresee LLMs learning from it, but it does feel like it’s in the spirit of what I intended.

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

#162

Post by loumf »

bonoboTP wrote: post #55
20k wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

Even if so, in older disputes (see Betamax/VHS), the possibility of verbatim reproduction didn’t stop the technology from being allowed because there were other non-reproduction benefits (time shifting).

Also, the restriction isn’t on a technology that could possibly reproduce something. It is on the act of using the technology to reproduce something.

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

#163

Post by falcor84 »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #157
falcor84 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I appreciate the grammar refresher, but my comment was about a monopoly on AI being very unlikely rather than it being an ontological impossibility.

What am I missing? Why should we be concerned about AI leading to a monopoly? And for which company?

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

#165

Post by loumf »

brookst wrote: post #113
20k wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can you point me to the statute that makes it ok for humans to learn from copyrighted work, but forbids AI? I’ll wait.

I am unaware of any statute or constitutional provision that confers rights to AI.

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

#166

Post by aatd86 »

puelocesar wrote: post #120
aatd86 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and then continue your reasoning... Is this sustainable? What do you think it leads to?

Major social chaos, economic meltdown and extreme crackdown on dissent by ultra facist government powered by palantir surveillance.

But if no one has money nor a job, if the old model of economy is broken that way, can rich people stay rich? (so to speak) Isn't there some kind of mean reversal?

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

#167

Post by loumf »

hparadiz wrote: post #59
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.

Suddenly it's "copyright infringement" to count the amount of times one word occurs after another word. I find this whole thing so amusing.

Suddenly it’s “copyright infringement” to put dots of ink on white paper.

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

#168

Post by aatd86 »

atoav wrote: post #152
aatd86 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

It is not like they/we have a choice if it is structural. Besides, the incentive is at least peace of mind. (but also 'peace')

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

#169

Post by TeMPOraL »

lazide wrote: post #136
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…

Why do you think big AI is going to just share all it’s ‘knowledge’?

Because you can access it for free? As it was the case from the first day LLMs became a thing in public consciousness?

Or did I miss the change, and ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini no longer have a free tier anymore? And then the next tier that costs peanuts for anyone in the west, that gives you more access to slightly fresher models?

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

#170

Post by TeMPOraL »

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."

Is there any major for-profit AI company that doesn't have generous free tier with access to SOTA models?
Post reply on HN