4 ms·
If you don't hold a patent for the use of the knowledge you published publicly, you can't prevent others from using the knowledge. You enjoy the prestige attach
by bonoboTP 3mo ago
If you don't hold a patent for the use of the knowledge you published publicly, you can't prevent others from using the knowledge. You enjoy the prestige attached to the idea that you're an academic who participates in giving away their knowledge but then you play this game when that knowledge would actually be useful as opposed to being read by 3 other people in your special area who sit on your various committees in your career, now you want to forbid the use for culture war intra-elite signaling reasons.
You don't own the knowledge you put out there unless you have a limited time valid patent. The rest is absurdity. If you want to keep your findings to yourself, keep them secret.
- sharts 3mo agoPatents shouldn’t exist.
- bonoboTP 3mo agoPatents were invented to incentivize disclosure of inventions and prevent extended secrecy. In exchange for the public disclosure (which allows others to experiment with the idea without selling yet), you get to keep exclusivity for N years.
- cwillu 3mo agoAnd? Currently patents are predominantly used to prevent interoperability and impose costs.
- dwattttt 3mo agoThe world would be quite different if AI companies had to create the knowledge they trained on, rather than consume that knowledge freely given away. They're not known for freely giving away their produce either, I don't know why you think the ire should be pointing in this direction.
- bonoboTP 3mo agoI like open models for sure. I support free software as well. But using published knowledge to solve new problems was never disallowed, even for profit. Today, a for-profit company, e.g. a gigantic Big Pharma company can have their employees read chemistry and biology papers and use the knowledge gained from it to improve their products and processes and make more profit without paying a cent to the authors (beyond what they may get - likely nothing - due to the potential paywall).
- 12387098 3mo ago[flagged]
- willy_k 3mo ago“If you don’t lock your bike, you can’t prevent others from taking it for a ride. You enjoy the mobility attached to the idea you’re a bike rider who rides a bike but then you play this game when that bike would actually be useful as opposed to sitting in the bike rack all day”.
- bonoboTP 3mo agoNope, and I'd also download cars.
- loumf 3mo agoThe intellectual property law that governs ACM articles is copyright law, not patents. I don’t know who controls these (the ACM or the authors) or what rights might have been granted to the public. The entire point of copyright law is so that people can make their writing public and still be able to control the right to make copies (for example, into your dataset for training an LLM).
- bonoboTP 3mo agoCopyright protects against reprinting or reproducing the wording and expression, not using the idea expressed in there in novel contexts.
- 20k 3mo agoAI 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
- bonoboTP 3mo agoThe 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.
- hparadiz 3mo agoSuddenly it's "copyright infringement" to count the amount of times one word occurs after another word. I find this whole thing so amusing.
- 20k 3mo agoAI has the capacity to exactly reproduce its training data, just because something is a transformed representation does not mean that it isn't copying it in some fashion. The JPEG format 'just' counts the frequencies in an 8x8 block of pixels, and yes that's 100% copyright infringement
- Cynddl 3mo agoThis makes no sense whatsoever. How would a philosopher of science, or a social scientist who publish in the ACM apply for a patent? Or someone who builds software (software patent not so easy to get ;)). I have applied for patents before and I'm pretty sure my patent application has been fed to countless LLMs by now. The issue is not who owns knowledge, it's how it benefits humanity.
- bonoboTP 3mo agoThey can't apply for a patent in those categories, so they have no way of preventing others from reading their text (or using a program to process the text, and compute statistical properties), and using the ideas in other contexts (without re-expressing the same text). If someone reads a philosophical essay, has a heureka moment from it, applies the principle to their work, and makes bank (commercial profit), they never have to pay a percentage to the author of the essay.