How the hell does no one talk about this?
How the hell does no one talk about this?
Taylor & Francis and Wiley sold out their researchers in bulk, this should be a crime.
Researchers need to be able to consent or refuse to consent and science need to be respected more than that.
Oh look! Socialism for the rich!
🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
See - this is why I don't give a shit about copyright.
It doesn't protect creators - it just enriches rent-seeking corporate fuckwads.
Daily reminder that copyright isn’t the only conceivable weapon we can wield against AI.
Anticompetitive business practices, labor law, privacy, likeness rights. There are plenty of angles to attack from.
Most importantly, we need strong unions. However we model AI regulation, we will still want some ability to grant training rights. But it can’t be a boilerplate part of an employment/contracting agreement. That’s the kind of thing unions are made to handle.
Look, I'm not against AI and automation in general. I'm not against losing my job either. We should use this as tools to overcome scarcity, use it for the better future of all of humanity. I don't mind losing my job if I could use my time to do things I love. But that won't happen as long as greedy ass companies use it against us.
“it is in the public interest for these emerging technologies to be trained on high-quality, reliable information.”
Oh, well if you say so. Oh wait, no one has a say anyway because corporations ru(i)n everything.
"We need to train LLMs with your data in order to make you obsolete."
If that's what it takes to get rid of CEOs then I'm on board.
Seriously though, that's the best application of AI. CEO is a simple logic based position, or so they tell us, that happens to consume more financial resources than many dozen lower level employees. If anyone is on the chopping block it should be them, in both senses of the phrase.
It's nice to see them lowering the bar for "high-quality" at the same time. Really makes it seem like they mean it. /s
"it's in the public interest" so all these articles will be freely available to the public. Right?... Riiight?!
"How is nobody talking about this?"
The average person has the science literacy at or below a fifth grader, and places academic study precedence below that of a story about a wish granting sky fairy who made earth in his basement as a hobby with zero lighting (obviously, as light hadn't been invented at that point).
Careful, you might cut yourself with that edge
I will not be called unrealistic by a cancelled nickelodeon puppet from the 90s.
Permanently Deleted
It's for reasons like these that I think its foolhardy to be advocating for a strengthening of copyrights when it comes to AI.
The windfall will not be shared, the data is already out of the hands of the individuals and any "pro-artist" law will only help kill the competition for companies like Google, Sony Music, Disney and Microsoft.
These companies will happily pay huge sums to lock anyone out of the scene. They are already splitting it between each other, they are anticipating a green light for regulatory capture.
Copyright is not supposed to be protecting individuals work from corporations, but the otherway around
Guess it's time to poison the data
A couple dozen zero-width unicode characters between every letter, white text on white background filled with nonsense, any other ideas?
Hilariously the data is poisoning itself, because as the criteria for decent review are dwindling, more non - reproducible crap science is published. Or its straight up fake. Journals don't care, correcting the scientific record always takes months or years. Fuck the publishers.
I think this happens because the publisher owns the content and owes royalties to authors under certain conditions (which may or may not be met in this situation). The reason I think this is I had a PhD buddy who published a book (nonfiction history) and we all got a hardy chuckle at the part of the contract that said the publisher got the theme park rights. But what if there were other provisions in the contract that would allow for this situation without compensating the authors? Anywho, this is a good reminder to read the fine print on anything you sign.
I’d guess books are different, but researchers don’t get paid anything for publishing in academic journals
Oh yeah, good point.
Reminds me of the song "Feed the Machine" by Poor Man's Poison:
How does cutting peer revoew time help get more content? The throughput will still be the same
Isn't that because the peers also write stuff? So it's not just a fixed delay on one-by-one papers, but a delay that goes between peers' periods of working on papers too.
The shitty chat bots do need high quality data. This is much better than scraping off reddit, since a glorified auto-complete cannot know that eating rocks is bad for you. You can't retroactively complain after having signed away your rights to something. But you can change things moving forward. If you are incorruptible and don't care about money, start an organization with those values and convince the researchers to join you. Good luck (seriously, I hope you succeed).
Permanently Deleted
Meh who cares. AI is gonna be more correct now. It costs nothing to use (if you run your own locally), and nothing to not use. Just don't use it if you hate it so much and for the love of god touch grass and get off twitter, that place is hell on earth.
Despite the downvotes I'm interested why you think this way...
The common Lemmy view is that morally, papers are meant to contribute to the sum of human knowledge as a whole, and therefore (1) shouldn't be paywalled in a way unfair to authors and reviewers -- they pay the journals, not the other way around -- and (2) closed-source artificially intelligent word guessers make money off of content that isn't their own, in ways that said content-makers have little agency or say, without contributing back to the sum of human knowledge by being open-source or transparent (Lemmy has a distaste for the cloisters of venture capital and multibillion-parameter server farms).
So it's not about using AI or not but about the lack of self-determination and transparency, e.g. an artist getting their style copied because they paid an art gallery to display it, and the art gallery traded rights to image generation companies without the artists' say (although it can be argued that the artists signed the ToS, though there aren't any viable alternatives to avoiding the signing).
I'm happy to listen if you differ!
I won't say that AI is the greatest thing since sliced bread but it is here and it's not going back in the bottle. I'm glad to see that we're at least trying to give it accurate information, instead of "look at all this user data we got from Reddit, let's have searches go through this stuff first!" Then some kid asks if it's safe to go running with scissors and the LLM says "yes! It's perfectly fine to run with sharp objects!"
The tech kinda really sucks full stop, but it'll be marginally better if it's information is at least accurate.
(1) shouldn't be paywalled in a way unfair to authors and reviewers -- they pay the journals, not the other way around --
Yes of course. It's not at all relevant?
(2) closed-source artificially intelligent word guessers make money off of content that isn't their own, in ways that said content-makers have little agency or say, without contributing back to the sum of human knowledge by being open-source or transparent
Yeah that's why I'm pro-AI, not only is it very literally transparent and most models open-weight, and most libraries open-source, but it's making knowledge massively more accessible.
I used to teach people to Google, but there is no point, now it's like a dark pattern, with very little reward for a lot of effort, because everything, especially YouTube is now a grift. Now I teach them how to proompt without also rotting their brain by outsourcing actual intellectual work rather than pure fact-finding.
Yes it is a bit shit at being correct, it hallucinates, but frankly to paraphrase Turing, infallibility is not a quality of intelligence.
And more practically if Joe Schmoe can't think critically and has to trust unquestionably then I'd rather he trust gippity than the average Facebook schizo.
With that in mind I see no reason not to feed it products of the scientific method, the most rigorous and highest solution to the problems of epistemology we've come up with thus far.
but about the lack of self-determination and transparency
Because frankly if you actually read the terms and conditions when you signed up to Facebook and your weird computer friends were all scoffing at the privacy invasion and if you listened to the experts then you and these artists would not feel like you were being treated unfairly, because not only did you allow it to happen, you all encouraged it. Now that it might actually be used for good, you are upset. It's disheartening. I'm sorry, most of you signed it all away by 2006. Data is forever.
an artist getting their style copied
So if I go to an art gallery for inspiration I must declare this in a contract too? This is absurd. But to be fair I'm not surprised. Intellectual property is altogether an absurd notion in the digital age, and insanity like "copyrighting styles" is just the sharpest most obvious edge of it.
I think also the fearmongering about artists is overplayed by people who are not artists. For all it's worth I've never heard this vehement anti-AI take outside of like Twitter and Reddit comment sections and I know plenty of artists, and those I do actually follow e.g. on YT are actually either skeptical but positive or using it already as part of their workflow even if they do have criticisms of the industry.
(Which I do of course too, in the sense that there should not be any industry for as long as the oppression of capital reigns supreme.)
Actually the only prolific individual of any kind that has voiced this opinion that I'm aware of is Hbomberguy who is self-admittedly a bit of an idiot, and it is obviously a tacked on claim with no real nuance or addressing of opposing views or sources for even the basic claims (which are completely wrong) at the end of a video about a completely different topic that makes the video seem more relevant and topical than it is.