Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Well if LLMs get access to it, we humans should get free access to it as well!
    by bitwize
  • Blocking access only hurts people who follow the rules. Unblocking access lets them compete with those who break the rules.

    I think the right choice is pretty clear...

    by spoaceman7777
  • It was so close! I could already see the end of all the predatory publishing and flourishing of open-access. Some even required by law. Knowledge was finally going to be free.

    But no, it will presumably get much worse as LLMs are inserted into this equation as yet another and new gatekeeper.

    (Disclaimer: I have publications with ACM, non open-access. And ACM wasn't even too bad, it's the others that give me pause.)

    by jval43
  • So give it for free to the open weight models, and charge the closed weight models. Easy
    by rurban
  • They probably already scraped it.
    by juancn
  • I think ACM should give everything away for free. US taxpayers pay for a lot of research and the previous administration required that government funded research be published and made freely available. See https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022...

    The back catalog at ACM isn't subject to this requirement and nor is research that's not funded by the US government, but I completely agree with the spirt of this law: research should be shared knowledge that other intelligences can build upon, whether human or machine. If you want to limit access to what you've done, don't publish it. Get a patent if that's an option, or keep it internal to a company as a trade secret.

    by jreynar
  • How about we give humans access
    by fsmv
  • As a researcher with many articles in the ACM library, I have to say this is a masterclass in hypocrisy. Obviously, lawyers can decipher the terms of ACM publishing contracts and Creative Commons licences to determine if this will be acceptable or not. But ACM is not a company, it's a non-profit founded in 1947 to represent scientists.

    I would be surprised if a majority of ACM members were to say yes should we ask them (but ACM is not known for such democracy). Along with book authors, we are one of the many people that provide the knowledge and expertise on which large tech firms train their models, and get nothing in return. Actually, life is getting worse for us: extra workload in universities with students' AI use, a completely broken peer review system, etc. Hence the irony of ACM thinking about licensing, and only licensing, at a time where this is the least of our priorities.

    by Cynddl

Explore Birbla archives

Now is the time to give LLMs access to the ACM digital library · Birbla