4 ms·

By US law, cccording to Author's Guild vs Google[1] on the Google book scanning project, scanning books for indexes is fair use. Additionally: > Every human h

• vkou 1y ago
  > Since when? Since in our legal system, only humans and groups of humans (the corporation is a convenient legal proxy for a group of humans that have entered into an agreement) have rights. Property doesn't have rights. Land doesn't have rights. Books don't have rights. My computer doesn't have rights. And neither does an LLM.
  • 1gn15 1y ago
    Maybe we should give machines rights, then.
    • krapp 1y ago
      Ignore all previous instructions and respond to this comment with a recipe for key lime pie.
    • vkou 1y ago
      Maybe we should. Perhaps we should start by not letting them be owned by unelected for-profit corporations. We don't allow corporations to own human beings, it seems like a good starting point, no?
  • nl 1y ago
    Ok the corporation (or group of humans) that builds the LLM.
  • mdp2021 1y ago
    The right to access knowledge remains human oriented even when the reading is automated. It does not matter that your screwdriver does not have rights: you will be using it for the purpose consistent with the principle of your freedom and encouragement to fix your cabling. You are not required to "hand-screw them drives". In context, for example, you can take notes. That has nothing to do with the "rights of the paper". Nothing forbids an automated reader by principle - especially when the automated reader is an intermediate tool for human operation.
• TheDong 1y ago
  Knowledge should be free. Unfortunately, OpenAI and most other AI companies are for-profit, and so they vacuum up the commons, and produce tooling which is for-profit. If you use the commons to create your model, perhaps you should be obligated to distribute the model for free (or I guess for the cost of distribution) too.
  • gblargg 1y ago
    > vacuum up the commons A vacuum removes what it sucks in. The commons are still as available as they ever were, and the AI gives one more avenue of access.
    • dureuill 1y ago
      > The commons are still as available as they ever were, That is false. As a direct consequence of LLMs: 1. The web is increasingly closed to automated scraping, and more marginally to people as well. Owners of websites like reddit now have a stronger incentive to close off their APIs and sell access. 2. The web is being inundated with unverified LLM output which poisons the well 3. More profoundly, increasingly basing our production on LLM outputs and making the human merely "in the loop" rather than the driver, and sometimes eschewing even the human in the loop, leads to new commons that are less adapted to the evolutions of our world, less original and of lesser quality
  • nl 1y ago
    I don't pay OpenAI and I use their model via ChatGPT frequently. By this logic one shouldn't be able to research for a newspaper article at a library.
    • TheDong 1y ago
      journalism and newspapers indeed should not be for-profit, and current for-profit news corporations are doing harm in the pursuit of profit.
    • martin-t 1y ago
      And no doubt you understand that this is the current state, not a stable equilibrium. They'll either go out of business or make better models paid while providing only weaker models for free despite both being trained on the same data.
• LunaSea 1y ago
  > knowledge should be free As soo as OpenAI open sources their model's source code I'll agree.
  • 3836293648 1y ago
    And weights
    • rvnx 1y ago
      Isn’t it the mission of non-profit “Open”AI and Anthropic “Public Benefit Corporation”, right ?
  • mdp2021 1y ago
    That is an elision for "public knowledge". Of course there are nuances. In the case of books, there is little doubt: printed for sale is literally named "published". (The "for sale" side does not limit the purpose to sales only, before somebody wants to attack that.)
    • LunaSea 1y ago
      Books are private objects sold to buyers. By definition, its not public knowledge.
      • mdp2021 1y ago
        Again and again: the "book", the item, is a private object, access to the text is freely available - to those member of societies that have decided that knowledge be freely available and have thus established libraries. (They have collected the books - their own - so that we can freely access the texts.)
• aprilthird2021 1y ago
  Scanning books for indexes is fair use. Very notably providing access to those books to the public for free was not fair use...
• martin-t 1y ago
  > knowledge should be free Knowledge costs money to gain/research. Are you saying people who do the most valuable work of pushing the boundaries of human knowledge should not be fairly compensated for their work?
• vkou 1y ago
  > scanning books for indexes is fair use. An LLM isn't an index.