"Did you realize that we live in a reality where SciHub is illegal, and OpenAI is not?"

And using publicly available data to train gets you a shitty chatbot...

Hell, even using copyrighted data to train isn't that great.

Like, what do you even think they're doing here for your conspiracy?

You think OpenAI is saying they should pay for the data? They're trying to use it for free.

Was this a meta joke and you had a chatbot write your comment?

OpenAI is definitely not the one arguing that they have stole data to train their AIs, and Disney will be fine whether AI requires owning the rights to training materials or not. Small artists, the ones protesting the most against it, will not. They are already seeing jobs and commission opportunities declining due to it.

Being publicly available in some form is not a permission to use and reproduce those works however you feel like. Only the real owner have the right to decide. We on the internet have always been a bit blasé about it, sometimes deservedly, but as we get to a point we are driving away the very same artists that we enjoy and get inspired by, maybe we should be a bit more understanding about their position.

That depends on what your definition of "publicly available" is. If you're scraping New York Times articles and pulling art off Tumblr then yeah, it's exactly stealing in the same way scihub is. Only difference is, scihub isn't boiling the oceans in an attempt to make rich people even richer.

We have a mechanism for people to make their work publically visible while reserving certain rights for themselves.

Are you saying that creators cannot (or ought not be able to) reserve the right to ML training for themselves? What if they want to selectively permit that right to FOSS or non-profits?

Scientific research papers are generally public too, in that you can always reach out to the researcher and they'll provide the papers for free, it's just the "corporate" journals that need their profit off of other peoples work...

They want to kill the open-source scene

Yeah, by using the argument you just gave as an excuse to "launder" copyleft works in the training data into permissively-licensed output.

Including even a single copyleft work in the training data ought to force every output of the system to be copyleft. Or if it doesn't, then the alternative is that the output shouldn't be legal to use at all.

The point is the entire concept of AI training off people's work to make profit for others is wrong without the permission of and compensation for the creator regardless if it's corporate or open source.

All of the AI fear mongering is fuelled by mega corps who fear that AI in some sort will eat into their profits and they can't make money off of it.

Image generation also had similar outcry because open source models smoked all the commercial ones.

Too bad

If you can’t afford to pay the authors of the data required for your project to work, then that sucks for you, but doesn’t give you the right to take anything you want and violate copyright.

Making a data agnostic model and releasing the source is fine, but a released, trained model owes royalties to its training data.

True, Big Tech loves monopoly power. It's hard to see how there can be an AI monopoly without expanding intellectual property rights.

It would mean a nice windfall profit for intellectual property owners. I doubt they worry about open source or competition but only think as far as lobbying to be given free money. It's weird how many people here, who are probably not all rich, support giving extra money to owners, merely for owning things. That's how it goes when you grow up on Ayn Rand, I guess.

This is the hardest thing to explain to people. Just convert it into a person with unlimited memory.

Open AI is sending said person to view every piece of human work, learns and makes connections, then make art or reports based on what you tell/ask this person.

Sci-Hub is doing the same thing but you can ask it for a specific book and they will write it down word for word for you, an exact copy.

Both morally should be free to do so. But we have laws that say the sci-hub human is illegally selling the work of others. Whereas the open ai human has to be given so many specific instructions to reproduce a human work that it’s practically like handing it a book and it handing the book back to you.

What data is public?

what's this? an anti-corporate message that sneers at cable TV companies??? CANCEL THAT SHOW!!!

that show was so amazingly prescient: the theme of the first episode was how advertising literally kills its viewers and the news covers things up. No wonder they didn't get renewed. ;)

Reminds me of this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

He has me so inspired imma go pirate a bunch of textbooks just because I can. I don't even need them.

Road billboards are always a trip when I visit the US. Not only do they have everything on them from Jesus to abortion to guns they are also incredibly distracting physically, especially at night.

Agreed. I hate ads passionately. Ive been able to eliminate every source of ads from inside my house except websites, but I immediately back any site that won't do simple or reading view.

Every moment of my attention taken by some stupid billboard or hearing tvs at a gas station I had to stop at is a moment I could have been thinking about something better. Or nothing, which sometimes would be nice.

Why do people hopl their TV's up to the internet? I'll never get it.

They let the Mouse die finally, maybe there is hope for change.

19 years. It wasn't life of the author either. It was 19 years after creation date plus an option to renew for another 19 at the end of that period. It was sensible. That's why we don't do it anymore.

Also, no researcher would even exist if grad students had to pay for the papers they read and cite. A lot of people is not fortunate enough to have access to these publications through their uni. Heck, even when I had it, I'd still go to sci-hub just for the sake of convenience.

Like a lot of services nowadays, they offer a mediocre service and still charge for it.

That's still the easiest way. Email them, don't tweet them.

It still works. The journal websites always include author contact info, just e-mail them.

legally

Not necessarily. They often do not own the copyright, so then it depends on fair use exceptions. The real owners have gone after authors, which may be the reason they don't make their articles downloadable by default.

Other than be happy for that attention and being curious of what extra things you can find in their field, they get quoted and that pushes their reputation a little higher. Locking up works heavily limits that, and the only reason behind that is a promise of a basic quality control when accepting works - and it's not ideal, there are many shady publications. Other than that it's cash from simple consumers, subscriptions money from institutes for works these company took a hold of and maybe don't have physical editions anymore just because, return to fig. 1, they depend on being published and quoted.

Yes it is, and that's the problem. I work my butt off to identify mechanisms to reduce musculoskeletal injury risk, and then to maintain my employment, I have to hand the rights to that work to a private organization that profits over it. To make matters worse, I then do the work to ensure the quality of other publications for the journal through the peer review process and am not compensated for it.

the journal owns the work.

Fortunately, open access has made some inroads. It is not universally true anymore. The situation is still pretty bad, though.

In what context would a UI/UX be considered a texhnocrat? I’m very confused

Ask Bing!

https://youtu.be/ro130m-f_yk

Adam explains it. Enjoy.

Well if you believe that you should look at the times lawsuit.

Word for word on hundreds/thousands of pages of stolen content, its damming

So it's content laundering

It's great how for most of us we're taught that just changing the order of words is still plagerism. For them they frequently end up using the exact same words as other things and people still argue it somehow is intelligent and somehow not plagerism.

Their argument is that the copying to their training database is "research". This would be a legal fair use of unauthorised copying. However, normally with research you make a prototype, and that prototype is distinctly different from the final commercial product. With LLM's the prototype is the finished commercial product, they keep adding to it, thus it isn't normal fair use.

When a court considers fair use, the first step is the type of use. The exemptions are education, research, news, comment, or criticism. Next, they consider the nature of the use, in particular whether it is commercial. Calling their copying "research" is a bit of a stretch - it's not like they're writing academic papers and making their data publicly available for review from other scientists - and their use is absolutely commercial. However, it needs to go before a judge to make the decision and it's very difficult for someone to show a cause of action, if only because all their copying is done secretly behind closed doors.

The output of the AI itself is a bit more difficult. The database ChatGPT runs off of does not include the whole works it learned from - it's in the training database where all the copying occurs. However, ChatGPT and other LLM's can sometimes still manage to reproduce the original works, and arguably this should be an offense. If a human being reads a book and then later writes a story that replicates significant parts of the book, then they would be guilty of plagiarism and copyright infringement, regardless of whether they genuinely believe they were coming up with original ideas.

They are also right.

That’s a pretty strong accusation. You seem to like to wade through people’s post history but to my cursory glance nothing would indicate this poster is a troll.

You understand AI posts frequently surface on this platform and people will engage with those posts even if they disagree with you?

Yeah, realistically what will happen is china will get far ahead in natural language computing which will benefit it's economy, everyone who demanded chat GPT be stopped because they're scared of change will demand the government do something to catch up and they'll write exemptions into the law.

More likely they'll realise this is the obvious way things will go and the only legislation will make it harder for open source and community run ai, but hopefully not significantly.

The next round of ai gen will start reaching consumer space soon. CAD, especially for electronics and structural design (E.g. creating the right amount of supports to hold a given load). They'll scare a few corporations into pushing for legislation but I think the utility will be far clearer.

Nuclear energy.

Sort of joking.

Great question, but unfortunately it's out of both my knowledge and will-to-research base.

Stem cell research

It would still be useless, the thing would just produce bullshit papers.

Actually a good point.

This is just the most inefficient zip file ever created

How would you publish if you're not a part of a major research institution? Los Alamos National Lab could host its own papers just fine, but what about small-time labs? I know of at least one person who doesn't even officially work in science but publishes original research they do in their free time.

The journal system still provides a service, even if they over-charge for access. The peer review system has value. Imagine if there was zero barrier to publish. As a reader, you'd have to wade through piles of trash to find decent science.

Where would you find it all? Currently we use journal aggregators, whose service also has value and costs money. Are you really going to go to every university's website looking for research relevant to your area? We could do that again, but with everyone responsibile for publishing their own work, well, who gets indexed with the aggregators?

The problem isn’t just publishing though, it’s academia as well. Scientists are incentivized to publish in “prestigious” closed access journals such as Nature. They are led to believe it’s better for their career than publishing in open access journals such as PLOS One. As such, groundbreaking papers often get paywalled. Universities then feel obligated to pay outrageous subscription fees to access them.

Like https://doaj.org/

I agree with you, but also Total War is the trademark brand and they're also gonna use it.

Yeah but we got all the dys without any of the topia. I was promised high quality prosthetics, neon blinkenlights, and the right to bear arms. We've got like 15% of the appropriate level of any of those.

Oh, well that makes it okay then. My mistake.

Lots of scientists will just send you their article if you email them. They don’t get the money when you pay to read it - often they pay to submit. Reviewing journal articles is a privilege and doesn’t get you paid. The prestige of a scientific article is from the number of times people have cited it. The only “harm” done is that the publisher doesn’t get to make 100% profit for doing nothing.

Journal publishing is mostly a way to extract money from universities. Elsevier and its ilk name whatever price they think a research university can afford.

A model trained on privately owned, properly licensed, or exclusively public works wouldn’t be a problem.

This is how we end up with only corpo owned AIs being allowed to exist imo, places like stock photo sites are the only ones with large enough repositories of images to train AI that they have all the legal rights to

The way I see it, either generative AI is legal, free for everyone to run locally, and the created works are public domain, OR, everyone pays $20/mo to massive faceless corpos for the rest of their lives to have the privilege of access to it because they're the only ones who own all (or have enough money to license) the IP needed to train them

I do not mean a fair use claim. To quote the copyright office "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed" source

Facts and ideas cannot be copy written, so what I was specifically referring to is that if I or an AI read a paper about jellyfish being ocean creatures, then later talk about jellyfish being ocean creatures, there's no restrictions on that whatsoever as long as we don't reproduce the paper word by word.

Now, most of the time AI summarizes things or collects facts, and since those themselves cannot be protected by copyright it's perfectly legal. On the occasion when AI spits out copy written work then that's a gray area and liability if any will probably decided in the courts.