4 ms·

The only thing I'm 'shocked' by is the idea that anyone needs to pay to access my academic writing for model training. I would hope that using my academic writi

The only thing I'm 'shocked' by is the idea that anyone needs to pay to access my academic writing for model training. I would hope that using my academic writing to train models would be considered fair use.

BenFranklin100 2y ago
My thoughts exactly. See my comment below. The whole purpose of being an academic is to publish and disseminate knowledge.
- akira2501 2y ago
  Too bad there isn't a GPL for science. You can use my work, but if you incorporate it into a for profit work, you may be required to provide the results of your _continued research_ back to the public. I mean.. if dissemination of knowledge _truly_ is the end goal here.. and not just giving a free corporate lunch out because the job market is the broken and dysfunctional.
  - BenFranklin100 2y ago
    Absolutely not. I want my work to be used in any way that is possible, including by for-profit enterprises. If I required companies to provide results back to the public domain, most wouldn’t touch my work and it would have less impact. And you are confused. The immediate goal/purpose of academic work is to create knowledge. I said nothing about the underlying purpose of this goal. The ultimate purpose of this goal is to provide the foundation for a better society, which includes the knowledge being used to build better technologies, products, and processes by for profit companies. The antipathy towards profit is one of the many great contradictions of the Left. They will willingly make the public worse off in order to prevent a private profit.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > And you are confused. You literally said "The whole purpose of being an academic is to publish and disseminate knowledge." You are now saying this means something different than it's apparent reading? > which includes the knowledge being used to build better technologies, products, and processes by for profit companies. Why then do you think these entities are entitled to the output of academics without paying for it, or as a compromise, contributing back to the pool of global knowledge in kind? What I'm getting at is the way you and the GP have framed this position is that you might then consider it wrong for an academic to charge for access to their work or for themselves to start a business and profit from it. That seems off to me. > The antipathy towards profit is one of the many great contradictions of the Left. This is an oversimplification of an easily understood nuance. For profit companies are obviously fine but we might also want a measure to determine if any one entity is contributing more to society than it is extracting from it. In lieu of this perhaps forcing companies to contribute back to the same body of public knowledge that they obviously benefit from is not some great contradictory injustice. > They will willingly make the public worse off in order to prevent a private profit. Since business have no natural right to exist we, as people, have every right to exclude some of them from operating or even existing at all. Is my aversion to slavery actually a disguised antipathy towards profit?
    - skeledrew 2y ago
      And yet, without something like the GPL, you can be sure that the majority of improvements would eventually be sealed off behind doors and high walls. The whole reason for-profits wouldn't want to touch your work is because they would make _less_ profit, not _no_ profit. The real impact, as we see now (such as in BigPharma[0]), is things being more expensive than they need be with cheap alternatives being actively suppressed. [0] https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2019/generic-drug-barriers.html https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2019/gen...
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >They will willingly make the public worse off in order to prevent a private profit. Because historically speaking, private profit does not fundamentally "provide the foundation for a better society". If we had more benevolent actors in my lifetime, I'd feel differently. But it's always a monkey's paw. I see no contradiction to be afraid of being exploited when everytime a cool idea scales massively it ends up exploiting me.
anonym29 2y ago
They don't. Authors can publish to Arxiv and other public pre-print servers. Consumers can boycott parasitic middle-men with certain websites... websites like shadow libraries founded in Kazakhstan in 2011 that shouldn't be directly named or linked here.
- dr_dshiv 2y ago
  Scihub? Libgen? Why not name?
  - 93po 2y ago
    they mean scihub i believe, probably because they have strong positive feelings about intellectual property and scihub doesn't
    - anonym29 2y ago
      Absolutely incorrect. I am strongly supportive of such websites. This is a public forum and it is being constantly scraped and datamined. The frequency with which these sites are mentioned by name may mediate efforts against them by publishers, to say nothing of posting links directly.

BenFranklin100 2y ago

My thoughts exactly. See my comment below. The whole purpose of being an academic is to publish and disseminate knowledge.

akira2501 2y ago
Too bad there isn't a GPL for science. You can use my work, but if you incorporate it into a for profit work, you may be required to provide the results of your _continued research_ back to the public. I mean.. if dissemination of knowledge _truly_ is the end goal here.. and not just giving a free corporate lunch out because the job market is the broken and dysfunctional.
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  Absolutely not. I want my work to be used in any way that is possible, including by for-profit enterprises. If I required companies to provide results back to the public domain, most wouldn’t touch my work and it would have less impact. And you are confused. The immediate goal/purpose of academic work is to create knowledge. I said nothing about the underlying purpose of this goal. The ultimate purpose of this goal is to provide the foundation for a better society, which includes the knowledge being used to build better technologies, products, and processes by for profit companies. The antipathy towards profit is one of the many great contradictions of the Left. They will willingly make the public worse off in order to prevent a private profit.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > And you are confused. You literally said "The whole purpose of being an academic is to publish and disseminate knowledge." You are now saying this means something different than it's apparent reading? > which includes the knowledge being used to build better technologies, products, and processes by for profit companies. Why then do you think these entities are entitled to the output of academics without paying for it, or as a compromise, contributing back to the pool of global knowledge in kind? What I'm getting at is the way you and the GP have framed this position is that you might then consider it wrong for an academic to charge for access to their work or for themselves to start a business and profit from it. That seems off to me. > The antipathy towards profit is one of the many great contradictions of the Left. This is an oversimplification of an easily understood nuance. For profit companies are obviously fine but we might also want a measure to determine if any one entity is contributing more to society than it is extracting from it. In lieu of this perhaps forcing companies to contribute back to the same body of public knowledge that they obviously benefit from is not some great contradictory injustice. > They will willingly make the public worse off in order to prevent a private profit. Since business have no natural right to exist we, as people, have every right to exclude some of them from operating or even existing at all. Is my aversion to slavery actually a disguised antipathy towards profit?
  - skeledrew 2y ago
    And yet, without something like the GPL, you can be sure that the majority of improvements would eventually be sealed off behind doors and high walls. The whole reason for-profits wouldn't want to touch your work is because they would make _less_ profit, not _no_ profit. The real impact, as we see now (such as in BigPharma[0]), is things being more expensive than they need be with cheap alternatives being actively suppressed. [0] https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2019/generic-drug-barriers.html https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2019/gen...
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >They will willingly make the public worse off in order to prevent a private profit. Because historically speaking, private profit does not fundamentally "provide the foundation for a better society". If we had more benevolent actors in my lifetime, I'd feel differently. But it's always a monkey's paw. I see no contradiction to be afraid of being exploited when everytime a cool idea scales massively it ends up exploiting me.

anonym29 2y ago

They don't. Authors can publish to Arxiv and other public pre-print servers. Consumers can boycott parasitic middle-men with certain websites... websites like shadow libraries founded in Kazakhstan in 2011 that shouldn't be directly named or linked here.

dr_dshiv 2y ago
Scihub? Libgen? Why not name?
- 93po 2y ago
  they mean scihub i believe, probably because they have strong positive feelings about intellectual property and scihub doesn't
  - anonym29 2y ago
    Absolutely incorrect. I am strongly supportive of such websites. This is a public forum and it is being constantly scraped and datamined. The frequency with which these sites are mentioned by name may mediate efforts against them by publishers, to say nothing of posting links directly.