There is no dissonance. I don’t think AI models should be getting stuff, because they’re not a public archive. They are using it to build a data model. There’s a difference between commercial use, which is the goal of AI companies, and spreading knowledge and research.
Man, he literally said it. Can you read? Wait sorry, you’re an AI techbro. You barely know how to write a prompt.
The goal of AI companies is to make money and give nothing back to the data that fed their model. Search indexes have a mutually beneficial relationship with whatever they index that drives traffic to websites.
I’m not sure I can make it any easier. Maybe ask chatgpt if you still don’t get it.
I understand what you’re going for, but that might be tricky legally. What special status does the archive have that allows it to make all that information accessible, that an AI model wouldn’t have?
Feeding it into AI’s is one of the things countless researchers would love to do with scientific literature in order to fuel more discoveries for the benefit of everyone.
but the parasitic journal owners try to heavily restrict what you can do with the text even after you’ve paid out the nose to publish and paid out the nose for subscriptions.
You’re speaking for the researchers. What they want is a free, public archive which already exists(not legally though). AI is not there to make an archive.
Well, if it’s just so people have to pay openAI to get access to knowledge instead of having to pay Elsevier, it’s not really what I personally want to be honest…
Academic journals should be free and available for everyone, they shouldn’t be getting fed into AI without permission.
Here, FTFY. I don’t know if you recognize the dissonance between the first and the second part of your sentence.
There is no dissonance. I don’t think AI models should be getting stuff, because they’re not a public archive. They are using it to build a data model. There’s a difference between commercial use, which is the goal of AI companies, and spreading knowledge and research.
That’s not dissonance.
So your opinion is also that search engines should pay websites for the content they index? Explain to me how one is different from th other.
Man, he literally said it. Can you read? Wait sorry, you’re an AI techbro. You barely know how to write a prompt.
The goal of AI companies is to make money and give nothing back to the data that fed their model. Search indexes have a mutually beneficial relationship with whatever they index that drives traffic to websites.
I’m not sure I can make it any easier. Maybe ask chatgpt if you still don’t get it.
You do realize you’re contradicting yourself, right?
Nope. Journals being accessible to everyone in an archive does not mean AI models should have carte blanche consent to use them to train.
I understand what you’re going for, but that might be tricky legally. What special status does the archive have that allows it to make all that information accessible, that an AI model wouldn’t have?
The law is fucked and needs to catch up to AI stuff. DMCA, fair use etc is not built to handle scraping on the level AI does.
Feeding it into AI’s is one of the things countless researchers would love to do with scientific literature in order to fuel more discoveries for the benefit of everyone.
but the parasitic journal owners try to heavily restrict what you can do with the text even after you’ve paid out the nose to publish and paid out the nose for subscriptions.
You’re speaking for the researchers. What they want is a free, public archive which already exists(not legally though). AI is not there to make an archive.
Well, if it’s just so people have to pay openAI to get access to knowledge instead of having to pay Elsevier, it’s not really what I personally want to be honest…
You managed to contradict yourself in one sentence.