Skyy93

Yes, sorry should have mentioned that. Of course the easy solution is then to simply decline.

It's even worse with some physicians. When I got an MRI a year or two ago, getting an AI diagnosis cost extra. I am very positive about AI, but I can understand why people would be hesitant to pay extra when they hear about false positives and the unreliability of AI.

Basically this was already decided with the Anthropic Case. Lawful acquirement of books allows for training. So basically buying each book once, which is trivial seeing the amount of money these companies sit on, is enough.

This comment left me chuckling. Thanks for that.

I have read the article. I called out that they are putting so much emphasis on this term, which is one line, one opinion and build 1/2 of their argument: AI-Company - bad! on it.

I agree with you, but I acknowledge that some people (not myself) might feel different about copyright.

>Why is book piracy a better way of doing things?

You twist the argument. Your argument would hold if AI's only use would be to generate booksverbatim it was already trained on. Which is certaintly not the case and huge efforts were made to circumvent this kind of usage.

They are having it in the subtitle. In general their whole article is about two main points, first the use of stuff from Libgen, second the points of making people jobless. Three of their points are about the jobless thing two about the LibGen.

About LibGen, there might be more discussion - fair. However, the second argument is no real discussion IMO. Why is putting people out of work suddenly a bad thing? Since when do we argue this when talking about automation?

>A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive legal right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.

The more interesting question is IMO if AI training actually falls into one of these cases. You can read a book and also copy it, but you do not do because of the law. However, you have the ability to do so. Is having the ability to do something already forbidden?

Simply look at the Wikipedia article?

>The group lobbies at the national and state levels on censorship and tax concerns, and it has initiated or supported several major lawsuits in defense of authors' copyrights.

Then you misunderstood my point. I think copyright law should be significantly changed and the current system hurts us all.

First, it's still a lobbying organization, so it's their job to make exaggerated claims, like a union in a company or any other organization with a political purpose. My first point was to highlight that it's not neutral or news related. It's fine that they have their opinion, but it's also my right to say that they're biased.

The second thing underscores my point. They use one line and think they've made a great point because one employee called LibGen sketchy. This site has been around since the 2010s, and it has helped many people do research. It's not just a sketchy website that suddenly appeared and is always doing bad things. I think a more nuanced stance is necessary.

This is a lobby organisation using only the pieces and bits they like to push their own agenda.

"sketchy russian website", how about using some more clear description like: A library for sharing books and articles that should be partly public domain because they were paid for by the public. Only some of the material is copyrighted by authors. However, some of their work is so old that it is not reprinted anyway.

But of course such an explanation would not click.

I also don't see a problem with statements about making people jobless. Imagine if every robotic or automation company advertised like this: Yeah, you'll buy tons of expensive robots and still rely on expensive labor from real people without any efficiency gains.

I think this is more of a systematic issue. I review now since 2-3 years, I do not get paid, which is fine. However, it takes always a huge amount of time without really having anything from it, but I do it because it is important work.

There now so many researcher that need to publish which explains the flooding, LLM only speed it up, so reciprocal reviews take place. So now you are forced to review and you are having less and less time. So it’s a natural choice for you if you already took an LLM to write a paper to use it to review.

Perhaps one solution would be much harder entry barriers, and enforcing some guidelines. For example that a supervisor can not have more than 5 papers and PhD students only need one real paper on a major conference/journal.