• Iunnrais@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just let anyone scrape it all for any reason. It’s science. Let it be free.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The OP tweet seems to be leaning pretty hard on the “AI bad” sentiment. If LLMs make academic knowledge more accessible to people that’s a good thing for the same reason what Aaron Swartz was doing was a good thing.

      • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        On the whole, maybe LLMs do make these subjects more accessible in a way that’s a net-positive, but there are a lot of monied interests that make positive, transparent design choices unlikely. The companies that create and tweak these generalized models want to make a return in the long run. Consequently, they have deliberately made their products speak in authoritative, neutral tones to make them seem more correct, unbiased and trustworthy to people.

        The problem is that LLMs ‘hallucinate’ details as an unavoidable consequence of their design. People can tell untruths as well, but if a person lies or misspeaks about a scientific study, they can be called out on it. An LLM cannot be held accountable in the same way, as it’s essentially a complex statistical prediction algorithm. Non-savvy users can easily be fed misinfo straight from the tap, and bad actors can easily generate correct-sounding misinformation to deliberately try and sway others.

        ChatGPT completely fabricating authors, titles, and even (fake) links to studies is a known problem. Far too often, unsuspecting users take its output at face value and believe it to be correct because it sounds correct. This is bad, and part of the issue is marketing these models as though they’re intelligent. They’re very good at generating plausible responses, but this should never be construed as them being good at generating correct ones.

  • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    To paraphrase Nixon:

    “When you’re a company, it’s not illegal.”

    To paraphrase Trump:

    “When you’re a company, they just let you do it.”

  • doctortran@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Can we be honest about this, please?

    Aaron Swartz went into a secure networking closet and left a computer there to covertly pull data from the server over many days without permission from anyone, which is absolutely not the same thing as scraping public data from the internet.

    He was a hero that didn’t deserve what happened, but it’s patently dishonest to ignore that he was effectively breaking and entering, plus installing a data harvesting device in the server room, which any organization in the world would rightfully identity as hostile behavior. Even your local library would call the cops if you tried to do that.

    • TheDoctor [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You left out the part where, instead of telling him to knock it off as soon as they learned about it and disciplining him internally as a student, the school contacted law enforcement and allowed him to continue doing it so they could prosecute him harder make an example out of him. You’d think if he was as big of a threat as you’re implying, they would stop what he was doing ASAP. And if you’re going to be pedantic about leaving out details, maybe tell the whole thing. Maybe it’s not “honest” enough if we haven’t posted the full text of a documentary in a comment. That’s clearly your call.