Taylor & Francis and Wiley sold out their researchers in bulk, this should be a crime.

Researchers need to be able to consent or refuse to consent and science need to be respected more than that.

  • fool@programming.dev
    3·
    3 hours ago

    Despite the downvotes I’m interested why you think this way…

    The common Lemmy view is that morally, papers are meant to contribute to the sum of human knowledge as a whole, and therefore (1) shouldn’t be paywalled in a way unfair to authors and reviewers – they pay the journals, not the other way around – and (2) closed-source artificially intelligent word guessers make money off of content that isn’t their own, in ways that said content-makers have little agency or say, without contributing back to the sum of human knowledge by being open-source or transparent (Lemmy has a distaste for the cloisters of venture capital and multibillion-parameter server farms).

    So it’s not about using AI or not but about the lack of self-determination and transparency, e.g. an artist getting their style copied because they paid an art gallery to display it, and the art gallery traded rights to image generation companies without the artists’ say (although it can be argued that the artists signed the ToS, though there aren’t any viable alternatives to avoiding the signing).

    I’m happy to listen if you differ!

    • toasteecup@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 hours ago

      I won’t say that AI is the greatest thing since sliced bread but it is here and it’s not going back in the bottle. I’m glad to see that we’re at least trying to give it accurate information, instead of “look at all this user data we got from Reddit, let’s have searches go through this stuff first!” Then some kid asks if it’s safe to go running with scissors and the LLM says “yes! It’s perfectly fine to run with sharp objects!”

      The tech kinda really sucks full stop, but it’ll be marginally better if it’s information is at least accurate.

      • SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org
        2·
        1 hour ago

        This could be true if they were to give more weight to academic sources, but I fear it will probably treat them like any other source, so a published paper and some moron on Reddit will still get the same say on wether the Earth is round.

      • fool@programming.dev
        2·
        2 hours ago

        Hmm, that makes sense. The toothpaste can’t go back into the tube, so they’re going a bit deeper to get a bit higher.

        That does shift my opinion a bit – something bad is at least being made better – although the “let’s use more content-that-wants-to-be-open in our closed-content” is still a consternation.