3 ms·

If it was a non profit that trained the model - would that change your mind?

by maCDzP 2mo ago

Cynddl 2mo ago
The issue here is ACM focusing on licensing. A non profit would not be able to pay ACM for access. Hence why this policy is hypocritical: it gives more power to the larger players and undermines smaller actors in the field who have fewer resources.
- bonoboTP 2mo ago
  Why did you sign off your copyright to ACM then? If you kept the copyright and prevented others from distributing your work, you could be the sole distributor and negotiate the price with the AI company yourself.
  - kelnos 2mo ago
    Because if you don't publish in academia, you might as well be dead. And the terms for most places to publish are similar. It's a racket.
    - bonoboTP 2mo ago
      Ok, then next question is why are you in academia? To share knowledge with humanity, bring the Promethean light to the mortals or something I guess. But then if they use it for productive things that make money, that's too smelly, that's too practical, too dirty, or what?
      - darkwater 2mo ago
        What a petty view of others you have :( What should they do then? Just shrug and move on, the machine must continue to grind no matter what? Why there is always this request for 100% purity if you dare to criticize the system or part of it?
      - avereveard 2mo ago
        Grants.They want the juicy grants and complain of the strings attached. Guess the single strongest predictor of paper in field per year?
        inigyou 2mo ago
        You really think a researcher is just a pointless intermediary in shovelling money from the government to the publishing rackets?
        avereveard 2mo ago
        that was a big jump from what I said. and what I said was that research lives off grants so researcher can't really come back and cry about strings attached to grants. ofc the problem is faceted, as grant go to published authors with track record, creating a publishing mafia, but everything rotates around the cashflow. but you want sweet grant money, you play the game by the rules. researcher that don't want to play the grant game can go and find a VC to subsidy product creation
- MASNeo 2mo ago
  Non Profit != No Money A non profit could well pay, and there are plenty of reasons frontier models should be managed by non profit. After all, why allow a for profit to benefit from free contributions?
  - undersuit 2mo ago
    A non-Profit like OpenAI? Oh wait I guess that can change.
- arjie 2mo ago
  Everybody gives more power to the larger players. You won't work for me for $10/hr but you'll work for a guy who has more money for more. There's nothing wrong with that. Money is just a fungible unit representing value offered.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - kannanvijayan 2mo ago
    I think your example hinges more on the fact that $10/hr is a desperation wage. It's not enough to buy you a life where you're not stepped on by others. The further up that chain you move the more other things start to matter, at least for most people. If you're offering me $300/hr and the other guy is offering me $400/hr, a whole lot of things start to matter more than the differential. That gets at the "fungibility" notion you refer to. Money has the same nominal value everywhere, but different real value based on how much of it you already have. Which is to say that the marginal value of money drops pretty precipitously several times at certain thresholds that relate to the particulars of the economy (when you can afford to eat, when you can afford a house, when you can afford to not work anymore, and so on).
    - rbanffy 2mo ago
      > If you're offering me $300/hr and the other guy is offering me $400/hr, a whole lot of things start to matter more than the differential. I’m not sure which Catholic saint said that, but one requires a minimum of material conditions in order to practice spiritual virtues. > when you can afford to eat, when you can afford a house, when you can afford to not work anymore, and so on When you can buy a government, a couple billion seems like a small loss.
- protocolture 2mo ago
  >The issue here is ACM focusing on licensing. A non profit would not be able to pay ACM for access. Hence why this policy is hypocritical: it gives more power to the larger players and undermines smaller actors in the field who have fewer resources. And when the open weights models distill all the content out of the majors anyway?
  - chrisjj 2mo ago
    And drop the atributions. What will the ACM say then?
vasco 2mo ago
Being a non-profit is just a tax arrangement, it shouldn't change any of your opinions. What does the tax rate of who does an action have to do with the action being good or bad?

If it was a non profit that trained the model - would that change your mind?

by maCDzP 2mo ago

If it was a non profit that trained the model - would that change your mind?

The issue here is ACM focusing on licensing. A non profit would not be able to pay ACM for access. Hence why this policy is hypocritical: it gives more power to the larger players and undermines smaller actors in the field who have fewer resources.

bonoboTP 2mo ago
Why did you sign off your copyright to ACM then? If you kept the copyright and prevented others from distributing your work, you could be the sole distributor and negotiate the price with the AI company yourself.
- kelnos 2mo ago
  Because if you don't publish in academia, you might as well be dead. And the terms for most places to publish are similar. It's a racket.
  - bonoboTP 2mo ago
    Ok, then next question is why are you in academia? To share knowledge with humanity, bring the Promethean light to the mortals or something I guess. But then if they use it for productive things that make money, that's too smelly, that's too practical, too dirty, or what?
    - darkwater 2mo ago
      What a petty view of others you have :( What should they do then? Just shrug and move on, the machine must continue to grind no matter what? Why there is always this request for 100% purity if you dare to criticize the system or part of it?
    - avereveard 2mo ago
      Grants.They want the juicy grants and complain of the strings attached. Guess the single strongest predictor of paper in field per year?
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        You really think a researcher is just a pointless intermediary in shovelling money from the government to the publishing rackets?
        avereveard 2mo ago
        that was a big jump from what I said. and what I said was that research lives off grants so researcher can't really come back and cry about strings attached to grants. ofc the problem is faceted, as grant go to published authors with track record, creating a publishing mafia, but everything rotates around the cashflow. but you want sweet grant money, you play the game by the rules. researcher that don't want to play the grant game can go and find a VC to subsidy product creation
MASNeo 2mo ago
Non Profit != No Money A non profit could well pay, and there are plenty of reasons frontier models should be managed by non profit. After all, why allow a for profit to benefit from free contributions?
- undersuit 2mo ago
  A non-Profit like OpenAI? Oh wait I guess that can change.
arjie 2mo ago
Everybody gives more power to the larger players. You won't work for me for $10/hr but you'll work for a guy who has more money for more. There's nothing wrong with that. Money is just a fungible unit representing value offered.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- kannanvijayan 2mo ago
  I think your example hinges more on the fact that $10/hr is a desperation wage. It's not enough to buy you a life where you're not stepped on by others. The further up that chain you move the more other things start to matter, at least for most people. If you're offering me $300/hr and the other guy is offering me $400/hr, a whole lot of things start to matter more than the differential. That gets at the "fungibility" notion you refer to. Money has the same nominal value everywhere, but different real value based on how much of it you already have. Which is to say that the marginal value of money drops pretty precipitously several times at certain thresholds that relate to the particulars of the economy (when you can afford to eat, when you can afford a house, when you can afford to not work anymore, and so on).
  - rbanffy 2mo ago
    > If you're offering me $300/hr and the other guy is offering me $400/hr, a whole lot of things start to matter more than the differential. I’m not sure which Catholic saint said that, but one requires a minimum of material conditions in order to practice spiritual virtues. > when you can afford to eat, when you can afford a house, when you can afford to not work anymore, and so on When you can buy a government, a couple billion seems like a small loss.
protocolture 2mo ago
>The issue here is ACM focusing on licensing. A non profit would not be able to pay ACM for access. Hence why this policy is hypocritical: it gives more power to the larger players and undermines smaller actors in the field who have fewer resources. And when the open weights models distill all the content out of the majors anyway?
- chrisjj 2mo ago
  And drop the atributions. What will the ACM say then?

vasco 2mo ago

Being a non-profit is just a tax arrangement, it shouldn't change any of your opinions. What does the tax rate of who does an action have to do with the action being good or bad?