"No word yet, so far as I know, on whether other rapacious AI companies did the same." As if there were the slightest possibility that they didn't. Thanks for the laugh, Gary.
This is blatant intellectual property theft, and they knew it. It's why the likes of Google and OpenAI are seeking copyright exemptions for AI training from the Trump administration. A similar effort is underway in the UK. Both must be stopped!
International crime syndicate headquartered in Silicon valley. It is up to the people who are consumers and users of this thing called Artificial intelligence to say to these companies we won't use your product unless you take care of all the I.P holders. People do have a voice.
I'm a retired scientist age 64 ..molecular biology .. currently working in a bicycle shop to make ends meet. Over my research career, published over 50 scientific papers that's my life's work, that's my working life
Would be nice, to get stream of income from these in retirement. Just a bit. Or some acknowledgments.
.
I just found out, LibGen stole them .. I searched their database .. they and Meta are earning money from copies of work I authored. They use them, to learn about people's interests to sell targeted advertising. They use my work to tune up AI software which they then sell.
As a scientist we publish, and it was for the general good. Assumption was others could use it for general good also. But this is mainly for private gain. Ethically they need to give back.
Hi Mike. You say "Would be nice, to get stream of income from these in retirement" but what exactly is it that you would have liked to happen? You agreed to either a) publish under an open access license like CC-BY, or in earlier times b) you have signed over the copyright to a publisher.
Scientists can have possibilities for extra income, but publishing scientific papers was never really one of them. And it was always possible for private companies to use your results to make a profit, unless you first wrote a patent to prevent this. Probably your employer owned part or all of any patents you filed.
Most likely the funds to conduct your research and pay your salary came from taxes or a charitable foundation. You got paid and published the results, which are public.
You were always free to do consulting work or start a company, and you still are. I'm no fan of AI companies but actually I think they have a right to use a large portion of open access science papers to train models, and a lot of closed access ones too if they did a deal with Elsevier and co.
Interestingly, if The Zuckertwat did sign-off on Intellectual Property Theft then it is possible to piece the corporate veil and go after him personally. Corporate shield does not protect Corporate Officers and Corporate Owners from illegal activity.
Three of my plays are in the database as well as an essay and an interview I did. I can't help but feel it's too late and these companies will get away with their theft.
Gary, kinda off of the topic. Did you notice that some people in the AI hype hate Wikipedia? Elon Musk called it woke, for example. But I see many instances of it. They want replace, I suspect, the job Wikipedia do with they unreliable AI. Alas, greed again. Replace Wikipedia (with has a powerful and knowledgeable community) or Online Encyclopedia such as Stanford E. Philosophy with ChatGPT would be heartbreaking.
"Technofeudalism is the idea that we are not transitioning from capitalism to something better, but slipping into a system where tech companies function like modern feudal lords."
Every time I see an incident like this, I perceive it as a glimpse into what would happen if these companies actually could build powerful AGI. They would simply take everything with the justification of "for the greater good".
It is clear that we are in no position to ever conceive of any conceptual successful alignment when the builders will always be misaligned.
Gary, I checked the dB in the Atlantic article—thanks for sharing this. Your hundreds of books and articles used without your permission (or reimbursement) would certainly piss me off, my *only* published book by John Wiley & Sons 14 years ago is listed on LibGen…and I’m still really pissed 😤
boy does this tell me the next billion dollar idea is to have a product that puts all published data by author behing a proprietary wall where one needs approval before using
Not trying to be a d**k or contrarian here and would like to hear your views. I'm in the performing arts and I do not like theft of artistic work (or any theft) . Here's a thought I'm grappling with. I have friends who believed in piracy as a right. Be it music , books or films. I had one very hippie friend who quotes the Dalai lama who apparently said that there is no such things as original creativity and that art should be free. (The same person wanted us to buy her book).
There are other friends who justify piracy because record labels or publishing houses make money off of us, cheat us, scrounge on royalties so why shouldn't we pirate / help ourselves.
So it seems like its only wrong when the big guys do it.
Again, I'm not justifying the actions of AI companies. Aside from the piracy, I worry about work being taken away from artists. Soon actors may be replaced by AI for supporting characters. (Extras were already replaced by CGI for epic films, who's to say they won't use any going forward.. or even robots for that matter)
I'm also aware that the scale or piracy and the level of brazen stealing is different from the average person downloading books etc. I don't even have a question or a strong point to make. Just thinking out loud.
"No word yet, so far as I know, on whether other rapacious AI companies did the same." As if there were the slightest possibility that they didn't. Thanks for the laugh, Gary.
Capitalism 101: From each according to their ability, to each according to how much they can grab.
This is not about capitalism. Intellectual property is respected in capitalism, and victims of IP theft have ways to defend themselves.
That's why they are all sucking up to our current ceremonial head-case of state, and president Musk.
This is blatant intellectual property theft, and they knew it. It's why the likes of Google and OpenAI are seeking copyright exemptions for AI training from the Trump administration. A similar effort is underway in the UK. Both must be stopped!
International crime syndicate headquartered in Silicon valley. It is up to the people who are consumers and users of this thing called Artificial intelligence to say to these companies we won't use your product unless you take care of all the I.P holders. People do have a voice.
I'm a retired scientist age 64 ..molecular biology .. currently working in a bicycle shop to make ends meet. Over my research career, published over 50 scientific papers that's my life's work, that's my working life
Would be nice, to get stream of income from these in retirement. Just a bit. Or some acknowledgments.
.
I just found out, LibGen stole them .. I searched their database .. they and Meta are earning money from copies of work I authored. They use them, to learn about people's interests to sell targeted advertising. They use my work to tune up AI software which they then sell.
As a scientist we publish, and it was for the general good. Assumption was others could use it for general good also. But this is mainly for private gain. Ethically they need to give back.
Forgive me if I am resentful.
People should sue for this.
Hi Mike. You say "Would be nice, to get stream of income from these in retirement" but what exactly is it that you would have liked to happen? You agreed to either a) publish under an open access license like CC-BY, or in earlier times b) you have signed over the copyright to a publisher.
Scientists can have possibilities for extra income, but publishing scientific papers was never really one of them. And it was always possible for private companies to use your results to make a profit, unless you first wrote a patent to prevent this. Probably your employer owned part or all of any patents you filed.
Most likely the funds to conduct your research and pay your salary came from taxes or a charitable foundation. You got paid and published the results, which are public.
You were always free to do consulting work or start a company, and you still are. I'm no fan of AI companies but actually I think they have a right to use a large portion of open access science papers to train models, and a lot of closed access ones too if they did a deal with Elsevier and co.
I’d say “unbelievable”, except, yeah, totally believable.
The only remedy is a class action law suit.
Interestingly, if The Zuckertwat did sign-off on Intellectual Property Theft then it is possible to piece the corporate veil and go after him personally. Corporate shield does not protect Corporate Officers and Corporate Owners from illegal activity.
Unlikely in practice, based on historical precedence, e.g. Great Financial Crisis of 2008.
It would be millions of people involved in such a class action suit! How would that work?
IANAL Consult your local Intellectual Property attorney
And OpenAI did it under the guise of a non-profit public benefit company...who could object...
There must be a lot of John Q. Publics working at OpenAI.
Three of my plays are in the database as well as an essay and an interview I did. I can't help but feel it's too late and these companies will get away with their theft.
I had done some analysis on this, presented in this article. The scale is unbelievable - 81TB !! The estimation is it costs $4B for that data.
https://open.substack.com/pub/pramodhmallipatna/p/the-data-dilemma-navigating-the-economics
81 terabytes and still no AGI huh
Gary, kinda off of the topic. Did you notice that some people in the AI hype hate Wikipedia? Elon Musk called it woke, for example. But I see many instances of it. They want replace, I suspect, the job Wikipedia do with they unreliable AI. Alas, greed again. Replace Wikipedia (with has a powerful and knowledgeable community) or Online Encyclopedia such as Stanford E. Philosophy with ChatGPT would be heartbreaking.
It's not even surprising anymore.. 😐. This reminds me of Technofeudism. (https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/451795/technofeudalism-by-varoufakis-yanis/9781529926095)
"Technofeudalism is the idea that we are not transitioning from capitalism to something better, but slipping into a system where tech companies function like modern feudal lords."
Every time I see an incident like this, I perceive it as a glimpse into what would happen if these companies actually could build powerful AGI. They would simply take everything with the justification of "for the greater good".
It is clear that we are in no position to ever conceive of any conceptual successful alignment when the builders will always be misaligned.
Gary, I checked the dB in the Atlantic article—thanks for sharing this. Your hundreds of books and articles used without your permission (or reimbursement) would certainly piss me off, my *only* published book by John Wiley & Sons 14 years ago is listed on LibGen…and I’m still really pissed 😤
It is not possible to work for an AI company AND be a good person
Maybe if you work for free!
boy does this tell me the next billion dollar idea is to have a product that puts all published data by author behing a proprietary wall where one needs approval before using
Not trying to be a d**k or contrarian here and would like to hear your views. I'm in the performing arts and I do not like theft of artistic work (or any theft) . Here's a thought I'm grappling with. I have friends who believed in piracy as a right. Be it music , books or films. I had one very hippie friend who quotes the Dalai lama who apparently said that there is no such things as original creativity and that art should be free. (The same person wanted us to buy her book).
There are other friends who justify piracy because record labels or publishing houses make money off of us, cheat us, scrounge on royalties so why shouldn't we pirate / help ourselves.
So it seems like its only wrong when the big guys do it.
Again, I'm not justifying the actions of AI companies. Aside from the piracy, I worry about work being taken away from artists. Soon actors may be replaced by AI for supporting characters. (Extras were already replaced by CGI for epic films, who's to say they won't use any going forward.. or even robots for that matter)
I'm also aware that the scale or piracy and the level of brazen stealing is different from the average person downloading books etc. I don't even have a question or a strong point to make. Just thinking out loud.
I see a class action coming; Humans vs AI.
Of course this will just 'convince' AI that humans are an impediment to progress.
AI only knows what humans teach it. It cannot be "convinced" of anything because it has no agency.
That is why I put convince in apostrophes.